Re: Why? "Marked for autoremoval on 24 March due to xdelta3: #965883"
On 2022-02-24 Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
> I favor moving away from pre-dh7 packages and I support people pushing for it. But I
> am in intriguing situation with this effort. Can someone help me.
> At: https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi
> I see:
> Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
> debian-history: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days
> debian-reference: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days
> maint-guide: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days
> These are all COMPAT=13 packages with d/control having:
> > Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13)
> Thus, it doesn't make sense to be connected to
> > xdelta3: Removal of obsolete debhelper compat 5 and 6 in bookworm
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965883
> Also, these packages are not even listed in the original hit list:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/07/msg00065.html
> I have been using at least compat=8 since 2013 for 2 of these packages
> and compat=7 since 2010 for another. So I can't figure out why these
> packages are suddenly flagged.
[...]
Hello,
Afaiui xdelta3 was (see below) rc-buggy, because it used dh 5 or 6 and
was therefore marked for autoremoval. Afaik autoremovals are recursive,
i.e. we do not make packages uninstallable by removing their
dependencies but instead also remove these depending packages. I think
this also extends to build-dependencies, we do not want unbuildable
packages in testing so these would be removed, too. The respective set of
xdelta3 is probly huge, it includes e.g. pristine-tar. I suspect
debian-history et al are part of this set.
This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has uploaded a fixed
xdelta3 package today. - Just doublecheck after the next britney run
whether debian-history ist still marked for removal.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: