On 03 Sep 2002 11:58:10 -0700
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What is the thinking behind always requiring libfoo-dev to depend on
> libbar-dev when libfoo depends on libbar? I understand the need when
> /usr/include/foo.h contains
>
> #include
So that libbar-dev can conflict
> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andrew> Recommends and Suggests are not considered when installing
Andrew> build-dependencies.
And packages aren't supposed to be built staticly either. Packages
that do build staticly could explicitly Build-Depend on whatever
On Tue, 03 Sep 2002, Stephen Zander wrote:
> I wrote a longer response to this but then thought about what you
> wrote a bit more and deleted it.
>
> > "Henrique" == Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrique> The lack of symbol versioning, about 90% of the time.
>
I wrote a longer response to this but then thought about what you
wrote a bit more and deleted it.
> "Henrique" == Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henrique> The lack of symbol versioning, about 90% of the time.
Then why not mandate symbol versioning instead; that
On Tue, 03 Sep 2002, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What is the thinking behind always requiring libfoo-dev to depend on
> > libbar-dev when libfoo depends on libbar? I understand the need when
The lack of symbol versioning, about 90% of the time.
> > bu
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:57:33PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> > "Ray" == J H M Dassen writes:
> Ray> How opaque is that opaque when considering the case of
> Ray> linking against a library statically?
>
> That need might reasonably be met with a Recommends: or Suggests:
Recommend
> "Ray" == J H M Dassen writes:
Ray> How opaque is that opaque when considering the case of
Ray> linking against a library statically?
That need might reasonably be met with a Recommends: or Suggests:
--
Stephen
To Republicans, limited government means not assisting people they
wou
Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the thinking behind always requiring libfoo-dev to depend on
> libbar-dev when libfoo depends on libbar? I understand the need when
> /usr/include/foo.h contains
>
> #include
>
> but if libfoo opaquely wraps libbar, why have libfoo-dev dep
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 11:58:10 -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:
> but if libfoo opaquely wraps libbar, why have libfoo-dev depend on
> libbar-dev?
How opaque is that opaque when considering the case of linking against a
library statically?
Ray
--
"The problem with the global village is all the glo
What is the thinking behind always requiring libfoo-dev to depend on
libbar-dev when libfoo depends on libbar? I understand the need when
/usr/include/foo.h contains
#include
but if libfoo opaquely wraps libbar, why have libfoo-dev depend on
libbar-dev?
--
Stephen
"Farcical aquatic ceremo
10 matches
Mail list logo
