Re: Build Dependencies of tetex-bin

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

> Even in woody:
>
> drachi:[hille] >apt-cache show libxaw-dev
> drachi:[hille] >
>
> So, what to do? Should we contact Branden about that issue?

I don't think so. It appears to be a bug in the apt version you are
using, since with apt 0.5.21, I get:

# apt-get --print-uris build-dep tetex-bin                sid root@florent
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following NEW packages will be installed:
  libexpat1-dev libpng12-dev libtiff3g-dev libwww-dev libxaw7-dev t1lib-dev
  zlib1g-dev
0 upgraded, 7 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 2262kB of archives.
After unpacking 7014kB of additional disk space will be used.
Do you want to continue? [Y/n] 
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/e/expat/libexpat1-dev_1.95.6-6_i386.d
eb' libexpat1-dev_1.95.6-6_i386.deb 109426 44f4aa47b7b73ffba30f56383da939ae
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/z/zlib/zlib1g-dev_1.2.1-3_i386.deb' z
lib1g-dev_1%3a1.2.1-3_i386.deb 406490 9d890b2bf014bf87202fbbc8a94df66a
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/libp/libpng3/libpng12-dev_1.2.5.0-4_i
386.deb' libpng12-dev_1.2.5.0-4_i386.deb 233436 f1122274ba28730c9d096a38d4ebc859
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/tiff/libtiff3g-dev_3.5.7-2_i386.deb
' libtiff3g-dev_3.5.7-2_i386.deb 388536 3d657352f43bbe18da2fe5c3900965af
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/w/w3c-libwww/libwww-dev_5.4.0-9_i386.
deb' libwww-dev_5.4.0-9_i386.deb 617950 b25db4fe073caf9dc8175615f519da0d
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/x/xfree86/libxaw7-dev_4.2.1-15_i386.d
eb' libxaw7-dev_4.2.1-15_i386.deb 352192 f957d48d13cf1a5de53c1a966423aa4b
'http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/t/t1lib-old/t1lib-dev_1.3.1-9_i386.de
b' t1lib-dev_1.3.1-9_i386.deb 153800 8460f0eff67118df2b61ce6d43409984

Personally, I would let the B-D as is until sarge releases because B-D
are supposed to express real relations and not only help build the
package on the latest Debian releases (otherwise, we could have a simple
B-D: woody | sarge and be done with it ;-). So, the fact that the
package might not build on a Debian release where libxaw-dev was
"current" is not sufficient to get rid of the B-D IMHO, since a user
could probably have a system with all B-D relatively recent except for a
libxaw-dev pacakge that was not updated for some reason.

-- 
Florent