On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:47:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 11:41:10PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > > > > > so it would be: > > > > > libcurl4-dev provide: libcurl-dev > > > > libcurl4-openssl-dev provide: libcurl-dev, libcurl-ssl-dev, > > > > libcurl3-openssl-dev > > > > libcurl4-gnutls-dev provide: libcurl-dev, libcurl-ssl-dev, > > > > libcurl3-gnutls-dev > > > > > libcurl-dev and libcurl-ssl-dev are already in place since the > > > > non-ssl/ssl scission, long time ago. > > > > > my intention is to add also a non-ssl libcurl flavour with > > > > libcurl4-dev. libcurl3-dev has been a transition package to install > > > > libcurl3-openssl-dev. hence those depending on libcurl3-dev instead of > > > > libcurl3-openssl would have a bug. > > > > That's incredibly lame, given that libcurl3-dev is what most packages > > > build-depend on (62 out of 73, according to 'dak rm'). My entire point > > > was > > > that you shouldn't break your library's reverse-dependencies without > > > reason! > > > libcurl4-openssl-dev should provide also libcurl3-dev, ok? > > That sounds good, thanks.
it looks like you would push some binNMUs to accelerate the transition, doesn't it? may i upload to unstable? regards domenico -----[ Domenico Andreoli, aka cavok --[ http://www.dandreoli.com/gpgkey.asc ---[ 3A0F 2F80 F79C 678A 8936 4FEE 0677 9033 A20E BC50 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
