Re: Bug#585767: Dependencies on linux-gnu or not+linux-gnu do not match armel or powerpcspe correctly
reassign 585767 type-handling 0.2.23
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 220.127.116.11
> Severity: important
> User: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Usertags: powerpcspe
> I'm actually a little unsure if this is a dpkg bug or a package bug, but
> I have had build failures from several packages which have Build-Depends
> like the following: (trimmed example from the gvfs-1.6.2-1 source package)
> libudev-dev (>= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu,
> libfuse-dev | hurd,
> libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) | linux-gnu,
> libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) | not+linux-gnu,
> libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) | not+linux-gnu,
> libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) | not+linux-gnu,
> libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.9.7) | hurd
> Unfortunately it seems like the "powerpcspe" and "armel" architectures
> do not provide the virtual packages "linux-gnu" and they do provide the
> virtual package "not+linux-gnu", although if I change those deps to
> "linux" and "not+linux" then they behave as expected.
> This seems to be related to the fact that the triplettable entries for
> those architectures map them as "linux-gnuspe" and "linux-gnueabi"
> respectively, instead of "linux-gnu".
Those virtual packages are provided by the type-handling packages so I
reassign it there if the provides are incorrect.
> On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain those package dependencies
> are compliant with current Debian Policy. I believe those package
> dependencies should be written as follows:
> libudev-dev (>= 0.139) [linux-any],
> libfuse-dev [!hurd-any],
> libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) [!linux-any],
> libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) [linux-any],
> libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) [linux-any],
> libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) [linux-any],
> libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.97) [!hurd-any]
> So I guess the question is whether the "linux-gnu" vs. "not+linux-gnu"
> behavior is correct, or alternatively whether or not it violates policy.
You're right that it's best to use the real architectutre wildcards
nowadays (#530687 it will be in policy soon).
> If the latter, perhaps dpkg-buildpackage should be patched to issue very
> loud warnings when those dependencies are detected as they are known to
> have incorrect behaviour on some platforms.
That's rather a task for lintian.
Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/
My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/