On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 14:12:24 -0400, Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: > > Well the obvious fix here is to have that library installed at build > > time. How is the project linking against it otherwise? > > ;) well -- as I have mentioned, it is a non-free package (not even in > Debian's non-free yet) which provides pre-built binary blobs > (extensions), which on their own are redistributable, but that library > is not. So it is upstream who builds/links against them -- I was just > wrapping them into a convenience non-free package.
Hmm, ok I see. This means installing the package will not produce a working program, I've to question the point of packaging this at all? Why not an installer-style package instead? > > While another option to ignore such errors could be > > added, I think I'd rather not, because those are easily fixed by having > > the library around, and not having it means allowing the possibility of > > generating pretty broken packages, for no apparent good reason. Given > > this I'm inclined to close the bug report if no convincing > > counter-arguments are put forward. > > I agree that it might lead to completely broken packages and generally > should not be used. But in some cases (like mine) for non-free packages > I see this option being useful. Yes, it kind of “makes sense” it that case, but I'm not sure I'm happy supporting that case (see the above question). I'm open to further pondering about it though. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
