On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:04:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> The consensus on Build-Depends has always been that they should be > >> deterministic and Build-Depends on provided packages are generaly not. > > > > Well, the way we do it, there can be only one package that provides said > > virtual package, so the autobuilders could perfectly install it if they > > weren't so broken. But then elmo told me "this is the way it is and it will > > not be fixed" over 2 years ago now, so i have little hope of the > > autobuilders > > doing the sensible thing. > > > >> Since the apt team does not seem to accept the trivial patch for the > >> problem with uniqe provides you have to avoid them. That means > > > > Nope, it works fine, is an elegant solution to a real problem, and since > > there > > is an upgrade each year only or so, the autobuilder maintainer can fix it by > > hand in their control file or whatever. > > No, the autobuilders (sbuild) is realy not to blame for unique > provides. It is an apt-get bug.
Ok. > >> providing a dummy package instead of Provides or Build-Depending on > >> the actual package. > > > > No, this is ugly. Why is it that people always prefer ugly workarounds over > > real fixes ? > > Because we want packages to build now and get sarge released instead > of fighting for another 2 years with elmo and keybuk. As you said: > "this is the way it is and it will not be fixed" Well, elmo told me this two years ago, so ... > Even if you get things fixed the fix would probably not make it into > sarge and the bug would still remain there. But i will continue to have the ocaml-3.08 and co provides used as build-dependencies. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
