Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
On 18/04/18 01:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed:
> we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not
> have been copied over to another package.
I'm sure people don't request those reviews because they don't know or because
they forget. A lintian warning could help, or ftp-masters enforcing an ack.
Though I'd prefer the former as I wouldn't like NEW to have another bottleneck.
> If someone wants to drive an effort to make -V a must for udebs in
> policy, that's probably fine. It doesn't strike me as ultimately needed
> (we've lived without it for quite some time because maintainers tend to
> just do the right thing), but if people have spare time, go for it.
It's not in policy (but I don't think it has to be), but following the
conversation on #-ftp yesterday I opened:
#895949 lintian: warn about packages with udebs but no udeb line in shlibs
#895953 lintian: check that shlibs-version >= higher-version-symbols-file
The latter wouldn't enforce -V, but would check that we at least get a high
enough version in shlibs as compared to the .symbols file (and would have solved
the zstd problem).