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

Bug#745135: Top 10 reasons you should sponsor MariaDB 10.0 into Debian this weekend (Re: Bug#745135: RFS: mariadb-10.0/10.0.13-1 [ITP] -- Latest version of worlds most popular non-Oracle database)



On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 01:15:39PM +0300, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> 2014-09-23 10:28 GMT+03:00 Guido van Steen <vansteen@users.sourceforge.net>:
> > I would like Mariadb to be accepted before the freeze as well. However
> > I am not a DD, so I cannot sponsor it myself.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback!
> 
> > In order to get Mariadb sponsored you might handle at least the
> > Lintian error (https://lintian.debian.org/tags/build-depends-on-obsolete-package.html,
> > http://labs.seravo.fi/~otto/mariadb-repo/logs/mariadb-10.0/mariadb-10.0_10.0.13-1_amd64.build-d992d30.log).
> > If it is a false positive, please explain why.
> 
> You are talking about:
> E: mariadb-10.0 source: missing-build-dependency dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.1~)
> 
> Isn't this a bug in Lintian? The package dpkg-dev is part of
> build-essential and there should not be any need to specify it. Why
> does Lintian add the version number, what is special about 1.16.1~ ?
> The package builds ok on sid, wheezy, trusty and precise, which most
> have older dpkg-dev than those.

FWIW, Lintian's changelog for version 2.5.13 (30 May 2013) has this
entry:

  * checks/rules:
    + [NT] Remove check for "dpkg-dev (>= 1.16.1~)" build-dependency,
      since this is trivially satisfied in Wheezy and Jessie.

That is, the Lintian authors realized that the 1.16.1~ dependency is
fine in unstable, testing, stable and oldstable, so there is no need for
this check any longer.

So it looks like Guido may have been using an older version of Lintian.

G'luck,
Peter

-- 
Peter Pentchev  roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org p.penchev@storpool.com
PGP key:        http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115  C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: