Hi there! On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 23:45:08 +0200, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report > which was filed against the xpdf package: > > #596862: xpdf-common: please provide a transitional package [...] > From: Michael Gilbert <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Bug#596862: xpdf-common: please provide a transitional package > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:46:12 -0400 > > tag 596862 wontfix > thanks > > On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 21:27:43 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 07:31:33PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:22:27 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:15:19PM +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > > > >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589425#20 > > > > > > > > It's not exactly the same. > > > > > > Conceptually, yes: > > > > > > - xpdf-reader was merged in xpdf, thus the old xpdf-reader package must > > > Depends: on xpdf. > > > > > > - xpdf-common was merged in xpdf, thus the old xpdf-common package must > > > Depends: on xpdf. > > > > > > I do not see any differences in the two situations above. > > >... > > > > You miss the different positions in the dependency chain: > > > > xpdf-reader depending on xpdf is required, since the xpdf program moved > > this way. > > > > There is no point in installing xpdf on a system that had xpdf-common > > only as a dependency of xpdf-utils for cups installed.
Adrian, *thank you* for the explanation, after which I (happily) stand corrected about the different situations... > ok, closing. thank you for the report. ...still I do not agree here, but given the wider situation and the impossibility to satisfy all desktop/server users, this is then a minor issue for myself as well. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
pgpsNYHGvnHuX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
