Re: Problem with dependency declaration

[frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)]

bob@proulx.com (Bob Proulx) schrieb:

> Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> Frank Küster wrote:
>> > If coreutils wouldn't be of priority required, I would just add
>> > "coreutils | stat" to the dependencies. What should I do in this case?
>> > Stat was in coreutils from the first time it appeared in Debian, so a
>> > versioned Depends: wouldn't make any sense (except that it makes lintian
>> > and linda be quiet...)
>> 
>> I don't have a sid system at hand, but doesn't coreutils
>> Provides/Replaces stat?
>
> Is there any reason that stat was removed from sarge?  Since coreutils
> has subsumed 'stat' shouldn't 'coreutils' create an empty package
> 'stat' for the transition? 

I don't see any sense in empty packages. What I thought was sensible is
a Provides: stat for coreutils. You might want to read.

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218925

The lintian bug mentioned in the end is #216536

So it seems best to add a dependency on coreutils plus a lintian
overrides referring to that bug. Unfortunately nobody has reacted to the
lintian bug - it seems lintian could deserve some volunteers to provide
patches. 

> This would be the same as with shellutils,
> fileutils, textutils. 

They also have Provides.

> It can then be removed at the next release
> along with those other three.  How I 'stat' different than the other
> three?

Mike Stone wrote:

,----
| No, it [coreutils] shouldn't [provide stat]. The only dependency on
| stat that existed at the time I created the coreutils package was
| versioned, an there's no versioned provides--so adding the provides
| wouldn't have helped.
`----

Bye, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie