[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#543385: [checks/debhelper.desc] Suggest debhelper 7.0.50 with override target



Russ Allbery wrote:
> Franck Joncourt <franck.mail@dthconnex.com> writes:
> 
>> The current version of debhelper in lenny-backports is 7.2.6~bpo50+1.
>> However a lintian warning suggests a BD on at least 7.0.50~ when we use
>> override targets in debian/rules.
> 
>> Therefore, I think there is no point mentionning the backport version.
>> A BD on at least debhelper 7.0.50 should be sufficent.
> 
> Why bother dropping the tilde?  It isn't hurting anything, and if someone
> happens to have a local backport of specifically version 7.0.50, it will
> still work.
> 
> Lintian's dependency recommendations normally include the tilde for native
> packages matter of course.
> 
>> - should be updated to require at least debhelper 7.0.50.  Giving the version
>> - followed by <tt>~</tt> is recommended so that backports will satisfy the
>> - dependency.
> 
> "backports" here is not intended to be specific to backports.org.
> 
>> - lenny was released with debhelper version 7.0.15, so every package that
>> - assumes a newer version should explicitly declare so for the sake of lenny
>> - backports.
> 
> This sentence is still true and shouldn't be removed.  Not everyone
> running lenny wants to use lenny-backports.
> 
> I agree that it's unlikely there are a lot of people with a local backport
> of specifically 7.0.50 who aren't using backports.org, but since
> permitting for that is a single character and is best practice anyway, I'd
> still recommend people follow the current Lintian advice.

You are right on the whole.

Now it makes me wonder in which cases I should really use the tilde, but
that is off topic. I am going to investigate a bit :)

My concern was about 7.0.50~ and the backport version available in
lenny-backports. So feel free to close this bug report.

Regards,

-- 
Franck Joncourt
http://debian.org - http://smhteam.info/wiki/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: