On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 05:17:33PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Duh. You're right. I admit to not being able to think of any other good > (i.e. not-a-bug) reason why this dependency should be there, then. Since > one of my packages has the same problem, I'll go and check why > dpkg-shlibdeps (what else??) thinks so. >
package dependencies are ok, so dpkg-shlibdeps is not wrong. at least on i386. -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://filibusta.crema.unimi.it/~cavok/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50
