Bug#199986: marked as done (lintian: debian policy allows debian/control dependency enhances)
Your message dated Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:17:17 +0100
with message-id <20040305011717.GE10300@djpig.de>
and subject line Bug#199986: Question about old patch
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Jul 2003 09:12:25 +0000
>From moeller@pzr.uni-rostock.de Fri Jul 04 04:11:49 2003
Return-path: <moeller@pzr.uni-rostock.de>
Received: from sigma.pzr.uni-rostock.de [139.30.99.3]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19YMbc-0001P4-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:11:48 -0500
Received: from rack4.pzr.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.99.74] ident=mail)
by sigma.pzr.uni-rostock.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 19YMbb-0003bm-00
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:11:47 +0200
Received: from rig141.pzr.uni-rostock.de ([139.30.99.141] helo=latitude.pzr.uni-rostock.de)
by rack4.pzr.uni-rostock.de with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 19YMbb-00026b-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:11:47 +0200
Received: from moeller by latitude.pzr.uni-rostock.de with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 19YMbb-0006G9-00; Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:11:47 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Steffen Moeller <moeller@pzr.uni-rostock.de>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: lintian: debian policy allows debian/control dependency 'enhances' in
section 7.4 (patch included)
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.18
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 11:11:47 +0200
Message-Id: <E19YMbb-0006G9-00@latitude.pzr.uni-rostock.de>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-11.3 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,PATCH_UNIFIED_DIFF
autolearn=ham version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_06_27 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
Package: lintian
Version: 1.22.8.1
Severity: normal
debian policy allows debian/control dependency 'enhances' in section 7.4 (patch included)
--- scripts.orig 2003-07-04 11:04:53.000000000 +0200
+++ scripts 2003-07-04 11:07:43.000000000 +0200
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@
# This is the best thing to do with the tk/tcl interpreters, which
# are often listed with dependencies like tk41|tk42|wish.
# They are also the only interpreters likely to be listed with
# alternatives.
-foreach my $depfield ('suggests', 'recommends', 'depends',
'pre-depends',
+foreach my $depfield ('suggests', 'enhances', 'recommends', 'depends',
'pre-depends',
'provides') {
if (open(IN, "fields/$depfield")) {
$_ = join('', <IN>);
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 199986-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Mar 2004 01:17:21 +0000
>From frank@lichtenheld.de Thu Mar 04 17:17:21 2004
Return-path: <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Received: from sorgfalt.net (mail.sorgfalt.net) [217.160.169.191]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Az3xp-0003Hb-00; Thu, 04 Mar 2004 17:17:21 -0800
Received: from p50839f57.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.131.159.87] helo=djpig.djpig.de)
by mail.sorgfalt.net with asmtp
(Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 (Sorgfalt))
id 1Az3xo-000487-00
for <199986-done@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:17:20 +0100
Received: from djpig by djpig.djpig.de with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1Az3xl-0003n1-00
for <199986-done@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 05 Mar 2004 02:17:17 +0100
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 02:17:17 +0100
From: Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
To: 199986-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#199986: Question about old patch
Message-ID: <20040305011717.GE10300@djpig.de>
References: <20040103004452.GE4634@djpig.de> <20040103231129.GA23545@pzr3.pzr.uni-rostock.de> <20040104003331.GB5014@djpig.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20040104003331.GB5014@djpig.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de>
Delivered-To: 199986-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_01
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER,
UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_01
X-Spam-Level:
Since I got never an answer from you to the following mail I just close
the bug now. If I have overlooked it or filtered or something like that,
please just answer to this mail.
Gruesse,
Frank Lichtenheld
[to other readers: sorry for that much German]
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:33:31AM +0100, djpig wrote:
> [Wenn Du auf Deutsch schreibst, bringt es wohl nichts, den
> Bug im CC zu lassen, habe ich daher nicht weiter getan]
>
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 12:11:29AM +0100, Steffen Moeller wrote:
> > Zum bug: In 7.2 der policy steht, dass man enhances benutzen duerfe um
> > eine funktionelle Verbesserung gegenueber einem anderen Paket deutlich
> > zu machen. Ich meine es war so, dass Lintian bei meinem Erstlings-Paket
> > etwas dagegen hatte und ich es daher bei mir lokal verbesserte.
> >
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#s-binarydeps
>
> Ok, mal etwas ausführlicher meine Meinung:
> Die Stelle, für die dein Patch ist, sucht nach dem möglichen Fehler,
> dass ein Paket ein Skript enthält aber keine Abhängigkeit auf das
> zum Interpretieren nötige Programm.
> Dafür werden die Abhängigkeiten (Pre-Depends,Depends,Recommends,
> Suggests) durchsucht und es wird geschaut, ob das Paket selbst die
> Funktionalität zur Verfügung stellt (Provides). Hier die Enhances
> zu checken wäre meiner Meinung nach falsch. Enhances sagt nämlich
> nur aus: "Wenn Sie den Interpreter installieren (also das "enhancte"
> Paket), überlegen Sie doch, ob sie auch foo (das Paket) installieren
> wollen, das bringt ihnen nämlich einen Mehrnutzen!" Es sagt aber nichts
> darüber aus, das das Paket den Interpreter für Teile seiner
> Funktionalität benötigen könnte! Im Zweifelsfall wäre also zumindestens
> ein Enhances _und_ ein Suggests angebracht.
> Wie in der Policy beschrieben, sollte man sich Enhances als Hinzufügen
> von Suggests zu einem _anderen_ Paket vorstellen.
>
> Ich hoffe meine Argumentation ist klargeworden. Du bist dran ;)
>
> Grüße,
> --
> Frank Lichtenheld <frank@lichtenheld.de>
> www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
Reply to: