build-depends in old-style package descriptions

[Ross Paterson]

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.