broken deps outside of packagers control

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:40:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > 
> > No. The pushscript makes available the i386 development packages for
> > x86_64, so you can develop for i386 on x86_64.
> > 
> 
> And does this in a very stupid way, for some reason in your reply you didn't 
> bother to react to this:

What is stupid?
 
> ---
> 
> No this sounds like a BAD solution to me. We are going to have this problem for
> every non noarch perl / python / ruby / xxx package that happens to split of a
> -devel package (for example because of .pc files).
> 
> ---
> 
> Where I was talking about the pygame-devel issue, 

pygame-devel is gone as it was broken. It required the main package
without reason, and the main package required 32-bit Python which is not
available for x86_64. The alternative would have been to blacklist
pygame-devel.

> simply putting all .i386 
> packages which have a -devel subpackage / provides in the x86_64 tree is wrong.
> 

Stupid. Wrong. Why? White-list, black-list, what do you refuse to
understand?

IMO, the gnumeric-devel package is broken and should be eliminated.
It would not be the first -devel package which should never have been
published.