On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 12:48:52PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: > Moin Steve! > Steve Langasek schrieb am Donnerstag, den 01. September 2005:
> > > -Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.0.0), libxrender-dev, imlib11-dev, > > > libgnome2-dev, libgnome-desktop-dev, gettext, xutils, libxft-dev (>> > > > 2.1.1) | libxft2-dev, dpatch, libesd0-dev, libpng12-dev, libxinerama-dev > > > [i386 ia64 powerpc] > > > +Build-Depends: debhelper, libxpm-dev, libxrandr-dev, libxrender-dev, > > > imlib11-dev, libgnome2-dev, libgnome-desktop-dev, gettext, xutils, > > > libxft-dev (>> 2.1.1) | libxft2-dev, dpatch, libesd0-dev, libpng12-dev, > > > libxinerama-dev [amd64 i386 ia64 powerpc ppc64] > Hm, sparc is missing too. > > > Build-Conflicts: libttf-dev > > > Standards-Version: 3.6.2.1 > > This bug is a duplicate of bug #319311, and this patch is wrong. > > - there is nothing architecture-specific about the libxinerama-dev > > build-dependency; you should not extend this brokenness with further > > enumeration of architectures > Ehm, what about not beeing available on any arch but the listed ones? Or > maybe I am missing something in debian/pool/main/x/xorg-x11/. I guess you must be missing something; libxinerama-dev is available on all release architectures. Anyway, it's no solution to pick and choose architectures to enable xinerama on just because not all architectures had built xorg-x11 yet. > > - nothing in the quoted error gives any reason why libxpm-dev and > > libxrandr-dev should be added as build-dependencies. > I think I should go back to the single xlibs-dev dependency again, that > has always guaranteed correct package set before. There has been plenty of discussion recently about dropping xlibs-dev from the archive completely, so that doesn't seem to me like a good idea. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
