Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 15 November 2011 17:18, Aurelien Jarno <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:aurelien@aurel32.net">aurelien@aurel32.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 12:00:50PM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:<br>
> Hi Aurelien,<br>
><br>
> On 15 November 2011 08:48, Aurelien Jarno <<a href="mailto:aurelien@aurel32.net">aurelien@aurel32.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> ><br>
> > This new version basically replaced the build-depends on<br>
> > libreadline-gplv2-dev<br>
> > by a build-depends on<br>
> > libreadline5-dev | libreadline-gplv2-dev<br>
> ><br>
> > Given libreadline5-dev is not in the archive, the package can't be<br>
> > built,<br>
><br>
><br>
> It seems to work as expected for me (iow, if either of the two are<br>
> installed, it proceeds with using the installed package). I tested both<br>
> variants on latest unstable, so I'm at a loss to explain the failure you're<br>
> seeing - can you forward the build output showing the issue?<br>
<br>
The buildd daemons require that the first package of an alternative<br>
exists in the archive, which is not the case there.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>*nod* - right you are - I look after another package which (by sheer good luck) got these the other the way around, correctly, and its building fine. I'll get a patch out for review, and get a new release uploaded soon.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the tip, Aurelien!</div><div><br></div><div>cheers.</div><div><br></div><div>--</div><div>Nathan</div></div>