Re: Accepted gallery2 2.3.1.dfsg-1~bpo50+1 (source all)
Alexander Wirt wrote:
>> > The question is not the changelog, it is why there was a versioned dep
>> > and why do you removed it. I still haven't seen an answer from you.
>>
>> I have no idea why the maintainer inserted such a strict dependency on
>> smarty. My tests shows that the backport works well with smarty from
>> etch, thus i'm sure i can ignore it.
> You don't have? wonderful answer, it took me 2 minutes to find out that
> #556256 was the reason for the versioned dep. This one doesn't seem to
> #apply
> to the stable smarty, so it seems it is ok to remove the dep.
[Correction: in the last mail i meant smarty from lenny, of course, not from
etch]
Yes, i haven't. I've seen the bug you've looked at (#556256), but i'm
probably not so smart as you are.
The bug argues that a change in gallery2's file (actually it is smarty's
file shipped in orig.tag) renders the package unusable. First, the
gallery2's binary deb doesn't install this file. Second, if you take a look
on #559073, you'd probably conclude that the defect is in smarty 2.6.20-1.2
from lenny, moreover the diff mentioned in #556256 is actually belongs to
the this smarty revision (it was a security patch), and the bug is even
tagged by hand as fixed in testing but i dont see how, probably by the
upstream.
And the last but perhaps the most important thing:
ii gallery2 2.3.1.dfsg-1~bpo50+1
ii smarty 2.6.20-1.2
This is my own production system which runs both packages and apparently is
unaffected by both bugs.
All of this makes no sence to me.
Reply to: