On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 04:01:33PM -0500, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > On 30 May 2005 at 15:02, Chris Lawrence wrote: > | On 5/30/05, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > reopen 307683 > | > tags 307683 -sarge > | > severity 307683 serious > | > thanks > | > > | > On i386, both the package in unstable and the package in unstable fail > | > if mawk is not installed. > | > > | > If you use mawk, you have to add a build dependency. > | > | It seems to me that the proper place to fix this is (still) in > | r-base-dev, since it's what's choosing mawk or gawk (and I'd have to
> Don't think so. Mawk is priority required. It can be assumed to be present. No, it cannot. You are only ever allowed to assume that packages that are Essential: yes (or in the case of build-dependencies, part of build-essential) are present. > | guess which mawk|gawk was being used on which architecture to fix it > | in this particular package - not to mention I suspect r-base-mapdata > AFAICT you have a particular package with a particular problem due to > specific needs for an AWK interpreter than are satisfied by only one of mawk > or gawk. This package is merely using whichever version of awk r-base-dev is telling it should be preferred; it doesn't depend on any particular implementation of awk, it just needs to know which one to call. It would probably be better if r-base-dev simply specified "awk", which IIRC is "virtually-essential" by virtue of being a dependency of an essential package. In any case, I've tagged this sarge-ignore because being virtually-essential, mawk is available on all Debian buildds -- accounting for the lack of *actual* build failures on archs other than amd64. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
