Hi, On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:31:46AM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: > As you have written "libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev", then I assume > you have the sense that there is probably license issue with > libreadline6-dev, so you choose libreadline5-dev over it by default, and > you keep the latter one because it might be useful for those who want to > compile binary packages themselves.
Actually, I was unaware of the license issue and don't really care what version of readline is used. XScorch works fine with both. I looked for libreadline-dev which would have been most convenient and when I didn't find it, I wrote a dep on both so I could still compile the package on older systems. The issue with the buildds using only the first dep is new to me and I really appreciate the information. I will start writing deps newest-to-oldest in my control files. > OK, then you need to check whether your build is correct, by running > lintian *and* checking the build log at least. You have tested it with > lintian already, then you forgot to check your log. I checked the log. It built fine. I didn't see any output I considered significant. However, I wasn't aware of the GPL issue. My omniscience level has been a bit low lately. Thanks, -Jacob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
