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

Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)

On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:

> I'm preparing a package which uses debconf. When I run lintian on the
> package the following error is reported:

> E: arno-iptables-firewall: settitle-requires-versioned-depends config
> N:
> N:   Debconf only supports the SETTITLE command as of version 1.3.22. To
> N:   ensure upgrades work correctly, packages that use this new command
> N:   should declare a dependency on that version of debconf.
> N:

> The strange thing is, that I have the following line in the control file:

> Depends: ${misc:Depends}, iptables (>=1.2.11), gawk, debconf (>=1.3.22) | debconf-2.0

> There is clearly a versioned debconf dependency. The above line is
> expanded to the following when building the package.

> Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, iptables (>= 1.2.11), gawk, debconf (>= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0

> Does anybody know where the problem is?

It's pretty likely that the lintian check is buggy in this case;
nevertheless, your depends: line is *also* buggy.

  Depends: debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, debconf (>= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0

Reduces to

  Depends: debconf (>= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0

*but*, this in turn reduces to 

  Depends: debconf-2.0

because there are versions of debconf older than 1.3.22 which provide
debconf-2.0 (the Provides: was introduced in debconf 1.2.30), so they
satisfy the second branch of the dependency relationship when they

If you depend on newer features than those guaranteed by the debconf-2.0
interface, you will need to depend on the providers of those features
explicitly, *without* an or on "debconf-2.0".

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: