On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 09:04:33PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 08:46:49AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > >> >The policy says it chooses one at random, the implementation says it > >> >chooses the first by default. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Strange. I recall that sometimes it tells the user to specify the wanted > >> package (among those alternatives) in the command-line. Am I wrong? > > > > Not sure, i don't remember exactly, but the behavior i describe > > (choosing the first one) is the one implemented by the autobuilders, and > > is why i do : > ... > > If you want to test it, just build a package that depends on spamoracle, > > (or add a spurious spamoracle | spamoracle-byte dependency to one of > > your packages) and try either and apt-get build-dep and/or building it > > with pbuilder to see what happens. > > I was not asking about autobuilders but dependencies of binary > packages.
Yes, sorry, i was lacking too much sleep when writing this. > If : > > Package: cameleon > Depends: zoggy (>= x.y.z) | zoggy-byte (>= x.y.z) > > apt-get install cameleon will triger the installation of zoggy, right? > It won't ask if I want zoggy or zoggy-byte? I really don't know, you could build a package with a fake dependency on spamoracle | spamoracle-byte, and try installing it. I suppose you would need to put it in a apt-getable place, or something such though. Friendly, Sven Luther
