Re: libreoffice_25.8.0~rc4-2~bpo13+1_source+amd64+all.changes REJECTED
Hi,
Am 26.08.25 um 19:22 schrieb Rene Engelhard:
package, but that change isn't mentioned or explained in the debian/changelog
file.
How fine-grained do you want to have it?
- Should I mention
diff -Nru libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control
--- libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control 2025-08-09 17:04:39.000000000 +0200
+++ libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control 2025-08-26 19:14:57.000000000 +0200
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@
Rules-Requires-Root: no
Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice.git
Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice
-Bugs:
+Bugs: mailto:debian-backports@lists.debian.org
Homepage: http://www.libreoffice.org
Package: libreoffice
? (Which is a result of regenerating debian/control, see below, too)., Was never a problem until now.
- Should I mention
diff -Nru libreoffice-25.8.0/debian/control libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control
--- libreoffice-25.8.0/debian/control 2025-08-22 13:33:08.000000000 +0200
+++ libreoffice-25.8.0~rc4/debian/control 2025-08-26 19:14:57.000000000 +0200
@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@
libboost-filesystem-dev,
libboost-iostreams-dev,
libboost-locale-dev,
+ libboost-program-options-dev,
+ libboost-system-dev,
libbox2d-dev,
libcairo2-dev,
libcdr-dev (<< 0.2~),
@@ -88,8 +90,6 @@
liblcms2-dev,
libloader-java [!armel !armhf !hppa !kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386 !mips64 !powerpcspe !ppc64el !s390x !sparc] <!nojava>,
liblockfile-bin,
- libmdds-dev (<< 3.2~),
- libmdds-dev (>= 3.0),
libmspub-dev (<< 0.2~),
libmspub-dev (>= 0.1),
libmwaw-dev (<< 0.4~),
@@ -100,8 +100,6 @@
libnumbertext-dev,
libodfgen-dev (<< 0.2~),
libodfgen-dev (>= 0.1),
- liborcus-dev (<< 0.21~),
- liborcus-dev (>= 0.20),
libpagemaker-dev,
libpagemaker-dev (<< 0.1~),
libpentaho-reporting-flow-engine-java [!armel !armhf !hppa !kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386 !mips64 !powerpcspe !ppc64el !s390x !sparc] <!nojava>,
@@ -217,10 +215,8 @@
libmariadb-dev,
libnumbertext-data (>= 1.0.11) <!nocheck>,
libopenjp2-7-dev [alpha amd64 arm64 armel armhf hppa i386 ia64 kfreebsd-amd64 kfreebsd-i386 loong64 m68k mips mipsel mips64 mips64el powerpc powerpcspe ppc64 ppc64el riscv64 s390x sparc sparc64],
- liborcus-dev (>= 0.20.0-2) <!nocheck>,
libpq-dev,
libxcb1-dev,
- libxml2-dev (>= 2.14.3+dfsg-0exp3) <!nocheck>,
llvm [!alpha !hppa !ia64 !m68k !mips !mipsel !mips64 !mips64el !powerpc !powerpcspe !ppc64 !ppc64el !s390x !sparc !sparc64],
locales <!nocheck> | locales-all <!nocheck>,
poppler-data [!alpha !armel !armhf !hppa !i386 !ia64 !kfreebsd-amd64 !kfreebsd-i386 !loong64 !m68k !mips !mipsel !mips64 !mips64el !powerpc !powerpcspe !ppc64 !ppc64el !riscv64 !s390x !sparc !sparc64] <!nocheck>,
That is all controlled by:
# Debian Trixie
ifeq "$(DEB_DISTRIBUTION)" "trixie-backports"
BUGS=mailto:debian-backports@lists.debian.org
SYSTEM_STUFF := $(filter-out mdds orcus java-websocket,$(SYSTEM_STUFF))
TRIXIE_BACKPORT=y
endif
and (here)
[....]
ifeq (,$(filter orcus, $(SYSTEM_STUFF)))
BUILD_DEPS += , libboost-system$(BOOST_VERSION)-dev $(BOOST_MINVER), libboost-iostreams$(BOOST_VERSION)-dev $(BOOST_MINVER), libboost-program-options$(BOOST_VERSION)-dev $(BOOST_MINVER), libboost-filesystem$(BOOST_VERSION)-dev $(BOOST_MINVER)
endif
[....]
ifneq (,$(filter mdds, $(SYSTEM_STUFF)))
BUILD_DEPS += , libmdds-dev (>= 3.0), libmdds-dev (<< 3.2~)
endif
ifneq (,$(filter orcus, $(SYSTEM_STUFF)))
BUILD_DEPS += , liborcus-dev (>= 0.20), liborcus-dev (<< 0.21~)
BUILD_DEPS_ARCH += , liborcus-dev (>= 0.20.0-2) <!nocheck>
endif
[...]
and in the libxml2 case by
ifeq "$(shell dpkg --compare-versions `pkg-config --modversion libxml-2.0` gt 2.14 && echo true)" "true"
BUILD_DEPS_ARCH += , libxml2-dev (>= 2.14.3+dfsg-0exp3) <!nocheck>
endif
?
In bookworm-backports I just mentioned the added tarballs as a consequence of this and didn't mention Bugs: at all. And Bugs: is forcing backports' policy of not reporting bugs in the normal BTS (let alone because it doesn't know the versions, and even if it knew it would be confused)
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: