Bug#339409: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#339409: typo in lib64z1-dev dependency)

2005-11-19 Thread Matthias Klose
Debian Bug Tracking System writes: As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was expecting it to do. yes, but you are required to depend on a real package as well, not just only on a virtual package.

Bug#339409: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#339409: typo in lib64z1-dev dependency)

2005-11-19 Thread Stephen Gran
This one time, at band camp, Matthias Klose said: Debian Bug Tracking System writes: As far as I can tell there is no actual bug here: the lib64c-dev provides exists in unstable and the dependency appears to do what I was expecting it to do. yes, but you are required to depend on a real

Bug#339409: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#339409: typo in lib64z1-dev dependency)

2005-11-19 Thread Mark Brown
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 03:20:20PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: If there were more than one package per architecture providing this virtual package, then the dependency would need to be adjusted to provide consistent behavior. But at first blush, we don't seem to be there. Yes, that's pretty