Re: Please allow qtstalker 0.26-5 into Sarge
Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 12:27:44PM +0200, Marco van Zwetselaar wrote:
>
>> qtstalker (0.26-5) unstable; urgency=low
>>
>> * Bumped libmysqlclient deps to fix FTBFS in sarge, closes: #306240
>> * Retrofitted workaround for another qmake bug in debian/rules
>
> I wonder why you didn't used a Build-Conflicts against qtstalker-doc
> instead of the rather lengthy and clumsy
>
> + # Prevent another qmake bug, see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=259081
> + @ [ ! -L /usr/share/doc/qtstalker/html ] || ( \
> + echo "It seems qtstalker-doc is installed in your build environment; this will trigger a qmake bug (see Debian bug #259081)." && \
> + echo "Please uninstall qtstalker-doc from your build environment." && false )
Good point. I guess that didn't come to mind because there isn't a
build conflict with qtstalker-doc per se. The problem is in qmake,
which generates faulty makefiles whenever the local file system contains
symlinks somewhere on an install path (bug #259081).
The -L was primarily intended to prevent the most likely occurrence of
that: when rebuilding the package after having done a debi and test run.
I agree that a Build-Conflicts would work equally well in that
situation. Good thing about the -L test is that it will also work for
people with a home-installed Qtstalker version on their system.
What about adding a Build-Conflicts /and/ keeping the -L test in?
Best regards,
Marco
Reply to: