Re: Bug#211292: dh-make: missing comma in debian/control templates
Hello dpkg maintainer people,
you might want to wander over to
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211292
for some context.
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 06:31:27AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> which will unfold to either of
>
> Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1),
> Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), debconf(>= 0.5)
>
> which both work. In the first of these to latter cases, the
> remove-empty-subfields feature of dpkg-deb is used.
It was the first case I was worried about, if that made it broken too.
So you have gone from breaking things if both things defined to breaking
things if only one is defined.
You also missed a case, how about:
Depends: , debconf(>= 0.5)
In this case, misc:Depends is defined but shlibs:Depends is not
So, to ask the dpkg people, will dpkg be happy with any of the three:
Contestant A) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1),
Contestant B) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), debconf(>= 0.5)
Contestant C) Depends: , debconf(>= 0.5)
The current setup does this, which apparently is now not allowed:
Contestant D) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1) debconf(>= 0.5)
If not, which ones work? I know contestant B is the right one, but are
any of the others permitted or not?
- Craig
--
Craig Small GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE 95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.enc.com.au/ MIEE Debian developer
csmall at : enc.com.au ieee.org debian.org
Reply to: