Re: build-depends in old-style package descriptions

On Sun, Sep 09, 2007 at 03:18:43PM +0200, Thomas Schilling wrote:

(1) was easier at the time. (2) should be relatively easy to implement now, but since the current implementation works, I didn't bother so far. I know that (1) is a rather hackish solution, but why is it "just wrong"? (After all, it works.)

It makes a package that doesn't contain a library look like it does have one (though unbuildable). I think there's an important difference between the two cases; it certainly matters to clients.