On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Fine by me. But do you think this calls for a bug against those
packages which unnecessarily depend on atlas due to this change? I can
file wishlists against those, and they surely should not need atlas,
as they have been without it earlier.
It makes
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
It makes sense, at least as long as we have no way to differentiate the
generic build requirement from the build requirement on official Debian
buildd.
Thanks. I shall do so, for those packages which I am concerned about.
It's
Dear Guillem,
Yes, I'd say those are bugs on the packages. There's no guarantee on
what's going to be present on the build environment, except for the
build dependency relationships.
I shall start filing wishlist bugs against such packages. I have
already done so against octave2.9.
But I
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:20:40PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.)
not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as
serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so.
I meant octave2.9, numpy
4 matches
Mail list logo
