On 17 September 2005 at 20:02, Rafael Laboissiere wrote:
| Some more thought on this:
|
| * Rafael Laboissiere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-17 19:44]:
|
| > Another question: octave2.1-headers has also currently the following
| > binary dependency:
| >
| > libhdf5-serial-dev | libhdf5-lam-dev | libhdf5-mpich-dev
| >
| > These packages conflict with each other and this is a potential source of
| > problems. I do not know whether these packages are binary incompatible or
| > not [hence the Cc: to Josselin.]
|
| In the present situation, octave2.1 depends on libhdf5-serial-1.6.4-0c2.
| This means that any user who tries to install the mpich or lam versions of
| the hdf5 libraries will have the octave packages removed.
|
| How could we insure that this won't happen, without having to provide
| -serial-, -mpich- and -lam- flavors of the octave package?
Hm, that may be a question for debian-devel.
Dirk
--
Statistics: The (futile) attempt to offer certainty about uncertainty.
-- Roger Koenker, 'Dictionary of Received Ideas of Statistics'
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
