Max Horn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 17:52 Uhr -0500 29.01.2003, Alexander Hansen wrote: > >On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 17:46, Max Horn wrote: > >> At 17:12 Uhr -0500 29.01.2003, Alexander Hansen wrote: > >> >A future issue for concern (after libpng vs. libpng3) is gtkhtml vs. > >> >gtkhtml1.1 . A lot of the users have GNOME, and gnome-core-shlibs > >> >depends on gtkhtml, as does gnucash (the two examples I actually have > >> >installed). However, evolution-1.2 depends on gtkhtml1.1-shlibs . > >> > > >> >This leads to a failed update-all because gtkhtml can't be removed in > >> >favor of gtkhtml-shlibs. > >> > >> Hu? both should coexist just fine, no? > >> > >Sorry--caffeine in bloodstream failing. I meant gtkhtml can't be > >removed in favor of gtkhtml1.1 > > No worries :-) > > one of the problems is/was (didn't check if it is still the case) > that gnome-core-shlibs depends on gtkhtml, which clearly is not > necessary. [snip]
The gtkhtml package itself contains binaries (a config script, I believe); there are also -dev and -shlibs splitoffs. Should the binaries be BuildDependsOnly? Or should we just set them up so that gtkhtml and gtkhtml1.1 can replace each other freely? I'm not sure what the right strategy is here... -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
