Re: Proposed MBF: Removal of libfreetype6-dev (causing FTBFS)
On 2023-08-19 10:03 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> [please CC me as I'm not subscribed to debian-devel]
>
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 21:45:13 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 00:07, Simon McVittie wrote:
>> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 22:38:20 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote:
>> > > Currently, there are 219 build-dependencies and 29 (direct)
>> > > dependencies on libfreetype6-dev, which has been released with
>> > > bullseye and bookworm.
>> >
>> > Lintian diagnoses this as "[build-]depends-on-obsolete-package" since
>> > 2.116.0 (MR at [1], instances of the relevant tags listed at [2] and
>> > [3]) which will hopefully help progress towards dropping the transitional
>> > package.
>>
>> Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware Lintian had started
>> flagging dependencies on obsolete packages some 10 months ago.
>>
>> Having Lintian issue a warning or error instead of bug filing is preferable.
>
> While it's true that lintian did issue an error, now that src:freetype has
> been updated and libfreetype6-dev has been dropped, there are a number of
> packages which hadn't been updated and now FTBFS.
Could you please name an example?
> AFAIUI there are people and/or tools which periodically rebuild packages to
> see if a 'sudden' change has caused a FTBFS and that then gets followed up by
> a MBF effort.
> As the FTBFS wrt libfreetype6-dev was predicted and announced [1], wouldn't it
> have been better if the MBF had taken place?
At the time I recommended just removing the libfreetype6-dev package[2],
based on my experience with the transitional -dev packages in ncurses,
where this approach worked without a hitch. What is different in
freetype?
> [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00193.html
Cheers,
Sven
2. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00195.html
Reply to: