After reading this thread I still don't really see the problem - I have the -dev packages and the ideal case would (imo) be, that I can either choose stripped or unstripped versions of "binaries". I don't really see, how:
"this would make it possible to build packages against libavcodec- unstripped-52 by accident." would be a problem. If I compile whole ffmpeg by myself, I may too compile against *unstripped* by accident... I tried the --force-depends, and fortunately got the -dev packages + *unstripped*, but I think it's a bit too much of a hassle. Without this (maybe standard, but still) trick, the *unstripped* packages are basically not installable (because of dependencies etc.) and thus unusable... And of course, aptitude's still screaming about the unsatisfied depedencies (-dev=>*stripped*)... The dev packages are mostly used by developers, who in turn (mostly) know, why they install *unstripped*... I would vote for "fixing" the provides/replaces/conflicts for these packages. -- libxxx-unstripped should also Provide libxxx https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/312898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
