On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 16:10 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 09 janvier 2006 à 15:45 +0100, Kurt Roeckx a écrit : > > Linking indirect dependency isn't a good thing, but not linking > > to them isn't magicly going to fix bugs like this. > > How so? Please show me a case where the bug will still be here. > > > You should _never_ exclude anything for the calculation of the > > dependencies, because it will result in such errors. Even if you > > think some other dependency will (now) take care of this for you > > doesn't mean you shouldn't have a depends on it. > > The gconf-sanity-check functionality is optional. As such, its
Why is gconf-sanity-check optional? It seems pretty vital to me. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
