Hi, [ please do not send me a identical mail besides that mail you sent to -mentors. I _am_ subscribed to -mentors. Thanks! ] Thomas Viehmann wrote: > Rene Engelhard wrote: > > Sven Luther wrote: > >>Or you could try a shlibs override. look at dpkg-shlibsdep manpage for > >>more details. > > Or you just kick the first xlibs out using sed :) > Given the fact that > - There is no policy reference in the Lintian output, > (Though I may have overlooked the item in policy to specify this.) > - The explanation "can break some tools" is rather soft... > - ... especially when there are approximately 307 other packages that would > break the same tools, > - The bug is not in the package and is "self-fixing" as far as the package > itself is concerned, When dpkg-dev is fixed or when the xlibs split occurs. Yes. > - The bug would have been fixed in dpkg-shlibdeps and/or xlibs if anyone cared > enough, > it may be argued that all you're doing is a "my package has zero or less lintian > errors" beauty contest, at least partially with *dubious* methods: Maybe... > Both of your suggestions cause unneccessary problems when backporting packages > which use it. Especially with the sed method, you're not removing an incorrect > dependency: You unconditionally remove a depencency, which is a bug in itself, Oh, yes. woody & sarge users would have problems with backporting.... > unless, of course, you specify a build-dependency on xlibs (>> 4.2.0). (And no, > I'm not suggesting the latter.) Understandably. > That type of hack may be justified when the problem you cure is more grave than > the side effects, but given that people are porting packages. What are the problems with porting here? Can you explain me? Porting isn't a problem. Backporting maybe. > > - who wonders why people don't read the archives; this issue came up already > > a few times... > For the individual that's because (# of issues * probability that I forget to > search or overlook something)>0 and for the issue (# of people * probability That was more or less a intuitive subject so if you have searched you would have found it... > that a random person does the same thing)>0. huh? Anyway, I'll remove this sed with the next upload... (kover 2.9.1-2) Regards, Rene.
Attachment:
pgpqzpnwisrZp.pgp
Description: PGP signature