Frank Küster wrote:
> Still it would be much better if it would somehow use a better version
> for the Depends. First of all, I think many people are not aware of the
> problem, and it would be less error prone if ${misc:Depends} wouldn't
> contain a (somewhat) arbitrary version number.It's not arbitrary, it's the first version of debconf that implemented version 2.0 of the debconf specification. Any packages using version 2 of the debconf spec have a well-defined interface that they can use, even if small details like the supported types of questions change. Since I have to include the | debconf-2.0, and since debconf _provides_ debconf-2.0, versioning the debconf side of the dependency with anything else would also actually be a no-op. > Second, it gives very ugly Depends lines: > > Depends: ucf, debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, debconf (>= 1.4.69) | > debconf-2.0 The dpkg people have already told me that they plan to let dpkg-dev fix this by combining the dependencies. There's a bug open about this somewhere. (Note that your | debconf-2.0 at the end of your dependency makes your tighter versioned dependency a no-op too.. all debconfs since 0.5 have provided debconf-2.0.) -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
