Re: libcifpp transition
Sorry for dropping the ball on this.
On 2022-02-06 21:16, Maarten L. Hekkelman wrote:
> Op 4-2-2022 om 11:43 schreef Maarten L. Hekkelman:
>> It took some time and effort, but I managed to get everything fixed
>> and building correctly. But tortoize still is marked as partial in the
>> libcifpp auto page. Libpdb-redo too, btw.
> Almost everything is in testing now. That nice, that way it will be in
> Jammy as well.
Great to hear that everything went fine in the end. Now both transitions
seem complete and I am free to use libcifpp 2.0.4 which is really nice.
>> The strange thing is, I can also not build tortoize in salsa in its CI
>> environment. The error here is:
>> This job depends on other jobs with expired/erased artifacts:
>> Please refer to
>> According to tracker, tortoize is completely OK.
> The problem became clear when I received a bug report, there was a
> hardcoded dependency on libcifpp1 in tortoize making it uninstallable.
> Curious, none of the tools ever warned about this.
Interesting. Maybe there is no tool with this capability. However,
binary packages with a dependency on libs package from another source
package in debian/control should be quite rare. Lintian does not have
enough information to detect such issues, although it could warn about
lib\S+\d in Depends.