On 26/12/15 at 12:54 +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:20:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Following my blog post yesterday with updated graphs about Debian > > packaging evolution[1], I prepared lists of packages for each kind of > > "outdatedness". Of course not all practices highlighted below are > > deprecated, and there are good reasons to continue to do some of them. > > But still, given that they all represent a clear minority of packages, I > > thought that it would be useful to list the related packages. (I > > honestly didn't know if some of my packages would show up in the lists!) > > > > The lists are available at https://people.debian.org/~lucas/qa-20151226/ > > oh, cool! > > > qa-helper_classic_debhelper.txt (3647 packages) > > > > The package is still using "classic" debhelper (no dh, no CDBS). > > A package of mine (libreoffice-dictionaries) is listed in .ddlist, but > not in .txt, how could it be? > Also, libreoffice-dictionaries was born using only dh, never used > classic debhelper. > Why is it listed there? That's a common problem with dd-list confusing source and binary packages. The hunspell-sv source package (which builds hunspell-sv-se, myspell-sv-se) is in the list, and dd-list thinks that it's a binary package, so it maps it to its corresponding source package (libreoffice-dictionaries), which points to you. Other than not using dd-list, I don't think there's a way around that. Lucas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature