Hey pino,
> > Why this is not built and shipped and still we have the dependency?
>
> I do not see any akonadi dependency in the binary packages, can you
> please explain exactly what you see?
what I mean is, if it is only checked at buildtime but no binary package
depend on it, why it was added to Build-Depends in first place?
Why we do not ship the calligra_semanticitem_{contact,event} plugins?
> This is because the tracker for the transition is partially wrong:
> - it considers "affected" all the sources that only build-depend on PIM
> packages: while this is generally correct, it ought to check both the
> actual bad _and_ good runtime dependencies instead
You are totally right, the ben file is not that exact that it could be. But
first it is one of my first transition that I triggered, so I'm not that
familiar with the ben syntax.
> - the "good" check seems correctly checking for the "new library names"
> - the "bad" check is basically "everything that does not depend on
> depend on the new names"... which is wrong -- it ought to explicitly
> check for the _old_ names instead
the bad state is the hard one to describe.
bad state:
a package depend on libfoo5
good state:
a package depend on libfoo5 and libfoo-18.08
> - calligra is considered "bad"
> - libkf5sieve, kf5-messagelib, kmail, libkf5mailcommon, and kmail are
> considered "bad" in all the architectures where they are not actually
> built
> - maybe (although I'm not sure about this) also all the "?!" states
>
> Please fix the ben file for this transition, so its status can be
> checked properly.
Well the next kdepim transition is easier as bad is libfoo-18.08 and good is
libfoo-19.08.
hefee
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.