Re: Bug#211292: dh-make: missing comma in debian/control templates
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Craig Small wrote:
> 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)
These should all work. If they don't, file bugs about it.
A short test-case will be a short debian/control, with no vars, and the
commas/items missing/existing as needed, and a dpkg-gencontrol run on that
package paragraph.
> The current setup does this, which apparently is now not allowed:
> Contestant D) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1) debconf(>= 0.5)
Of course this isn't allowed. It's an invalid line.
> If not, which ones work? I know contestant B is the right one, but are
> any of the others permitted or not?
Reply to: