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

Re: What is "disparity error" ?



On 19 Nov 2006 18:18:24 +0200
Jari Aalto <jari.aalto@cante.net> wrote:

>     There are disparities between your recently accepted upload and the
>     override file for the following file(s):
>     edb_1.21-15_all.deb: package says section is utils, override says misc.

The override file declares where a package description is to be filed.
In effect, the section of Debian that expects to include this package.
The overrides are initially set when the package is first uploaded and,
in general, should not change later. Unless there is a good reason to
move the package from misc into utils, you should upload a new version
with Section: misc instead of Section: utils in debian/control.

You'll get similar disparities with Priority values but these are more
awkward - you may not be able to change to the same Priority as the
override file because a new dependency in the package may have a lower
priority than your package. If the dependency is "extra" and the
package is "optional", this will cause a debcheck error on your package
- an application should not depend on a dependency of lower priority
(because this package would be on a different CDROM, causing grief
during an install from CD). In this situation, you'll have to follow
the instructions in the disparity notice and send an email to request a
change in the override file. It takes a while.

http://packages.qa.debian.org/q/qof.html
    * libqof-backend-sqlite0: Override says libs - extra, .deb says
libs - optional
    * libqof-backend-qsf0: Override says libs - extra, .deb says libs -
optional

http://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstable&package=pilot-qof
Package is optional and has a Depends on libqof-backend-qsf0 which is
extra on i386.

I've tried to fix this by email but, so far, nothing has changed. The
override file, IMHO, is wrong here (my fault - the first upload of
these new packages went awry) - if the override file for the two QOF
packages is updated, both problems disappear.


--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpuDkwaFliiA.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: