Le mardi 19 août 2025 à 13:41 +0200, Rafael Laboissière a écrit :
> * Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2025-08-18 10:18]:
>
> > Le lundi 18 août 2025 à 15:53 +0200, Rafael Laboissière a écrit :
> > > * Sébastien Villemot <sebastien@debian.org> [2025-08-17 10:20]:
> > > […]
> > > > So is there any other reason to keep those build-dependencies on dh-
> > > > octave, that I may be missing?
> > >
> > > I think that it is just to ensure that newly created packages depend on
> > > the version of dh-octave that contains the dh_octave-make script that
> > > generated the package. This may be superfluous in some cases, indeed. Do
> > > you see it as a nuisance?
> > >
> >
> > I think I’d rather have it removed in all existing packages when the
> > versioned dependency is no longer needed (I guess most if not all
> > cases). I agree that it’s mostly cosmetic, so I won’t argue if you
> > disagree.
> >
> > For dh_octave_make, I would also remove it for now, for the same
> > reason.
>
> What do you mean by “the versioned dependency is no longer needed?”
> >
Concretely, before my last upload, octave-io has the following in
Build-Depends (omitting debhelper-compat):
dh-octave (>= 1.2.2),
dh-sequence-octave
The version constraint on dh-octave is satisfied in stable (and even
oldstable), so it can be safely removed. Hence, one would get:
dh-octave,
dh-sequence-octave
But dh-sequence-octave depends on dh-octave, so the whole dependency on
dh-octave can be dropped, and only dh-sequence-octave needs to be
present.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://sebastien.villemot.name
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ https://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part