Uwe Steinmann wrote: > On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 01:32:40PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> You have a build dependency on: >> libgd2-dev (>> 2.0.0) | libgd2-xpm-dev (>> 2.0.0) | libgd2-noxpm-dev (>> >> 2.0.0) >> >> The buildd's will only consider the first of those, and then fail. >> You'll want to remove that part. > Is this specific for the buildds or the above dependency line > in general the wrong approach? I would say both. The reason buildds don't parse the alternative build dependencies is because the build has to be reproducible over time. If you want builds that are reproducible over time, alternative build dependencies don't make sense at all as that would mean it depends on the environment at the time of the build what the outcome of the actual build dependency is... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
