[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible mass filing of bugs: don't use libxaw-dev



Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

> If you mean that these Build-Depend on pure virtual packages, then they
> should be changed.
> 
> If they work with Xaw 7, they should B-D on libxaw7-dev | lixaw-dev.
> 
> If they don't work with Xaw 7, they should B-D lixaw6-dev | libxaw-dev.

At least one package, xemacs21, crashes if you try to build it against
libxaw6-dev, which would still be possible with this on the
Build-Depends line.

> > Packages which specify libxaw7-dev|libxaw-dev, which should work for
> > autobuilders but still allows too much freedom for building the
> > packages locally:
> 
> Wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of Build-Depends
was to ensure that any packages built from the source package were
roughly equivalent to the official version.  After all, we don't have
"Build-Suggests" for packages which enhance functionality in the
resulting packages but aren't necessary to compile them.  I don't
think a package linked against libxaw6 instead of libxaw7 qualifies as
"equivalent".

This is probably _almost_ a moot point, though, since autobuilders
use the first alternative they can satisfy (I think), and any uploads
_should_ theoretically be tested first to make sure the packages
aren't broken. :)

Or are you thinking of Build-Depends:libxaw7-dev|libxaw-dev,
Build-Conflicts:libxaw6-dev?  This seems unnecessarily ugly.

> > acm4, apmd, ghostview, groff, kinput2, kterm, seyon, tetex-bin, xbvl,
> > xruskb
> 
> I object to this.
> 
> If they work with Xaw 7, they should B-D on libxaw7-dev | lixaw-dev.
> 
> If they don't work with Xaw 7, they should B-D lixaw6-dev | libxaw-dev.

That's what those packages currently do, so unless a consensus is
reached supporting my opinion, I'll hold off on these.

> > This list doesn't include any old packages which might exist, which
> > still Build-Depend on xlib6g-dev but link against libxaw.
> 
> It would be helpful if you filed bugs against these anyway so that I can
> drop the xlib6g* packages for the next Debian release.

If you mean filing bugs against any source or binary packages still
depending on xlib6g*, I agree.  I might do this later if nobody else
does.
-- 
Daniel Schepler              "Please don't disillusion me.  I
schepler@math.berkeley.edu    haven't had breakfast yet."
                                 -- Orson Scott Card



Reply to: