[pkg-wine-party] Bug#554211: marked as done (wine-bin-unstable: usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency libwine-unstable)
Your message dated Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:08:39 +0100
with message-id <4AF18AE7.6070400@arcticnet.no>
and subject line Re: [pkg-wine-party] Bug#554211: wine-bin-unstable: usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency libwine-unstable
has caused the Debian Bug report #554211,
regarding wine-bin-unstable: usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency libwine-unstable
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
554211: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=554211
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: wine-bin-unstable
Version: 1.1.32-1
Severity: serious
User: lintian-maint@debian.org
Usertags: usr-share-doc-symlink-without-dependency
If the package installs a symbolic link /usr/share/doc/pkg1 -> pkg2,
then pkg1 has to depend on pkg2 with the same version as pkg1.
Note, that adding the "Depends:" entry just to fix this bug is not a
good solution. It's suggested that you include a real
/usr/share/doc/pkg1 directory within pkg1 and copy the copyright file
into that directory. If the packages do not share source code, then
pkg1 should have its own copyright file (since the authors of pkg2 are
not to blame for pkg1). This bit covers meta packages as well.
Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 12.5 (Copyright information) for
details.
,----[ 12.5 Copyright information ]
| Every package must be accompanied by a verbatim copy of its copyright
| and distribution license in the file
| /usr/share/doc/package/copyright. This file must neither be compressed
| nor be a symbolic link. `
| ...
| /usr/share/doc/package may be a symbolic link to another directory in
| /usr/share/doc only if the two packages both come from the same source
| and the first package Depends on the second. These rules are important
| because copyrights must be extractable by mechanical means.
`----
This is a bug filed due to a lintian warning (see above). However,
this has also been checked manually, and thus there should be no false
positives.
Filed as serious since it is a violation of a must directive in
policy, and also since a package with these flaws will
currently get this package rejected. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg00004.html
for details. This means the package has been deemed too buggy to be in
Debian.
manoj
-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'oldstable'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.31.4-anzu-2 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_US.UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Manoj Srivastava skrev:
> Note, that adding the "Depends:" entry just to fix this bug is not a
> good solution. It's suggested that you include a real
> /usr/share/doc/pkg1 directory within pkg1 and copy the copyright file
> into that directory.
That's the debhelper default, isn't it? Making a symlink instead takes
extra effort, and there's usually a reason for doing it (in Wine's case,
the duplicated changelogs were often larger than the rest of the
contents of many libwine-* packages).
> This is a bug filed due to a lintian warning (see above). However,
> this has also been checked manually, and thus there should be no false
> positives.
I'll disagree, and am closing these bugs as invalid. Since
wine-bin-unstable has a strict dependency on libwine-bin-unstable, which
has a strict dependency on libwine-unstable, the symlinked-to
/usr/share/doc/libwine-unstable will always be present, and be of the
correct version. And wine-unstable, in turn, has a strict dependency on
wine-bin-unstable, which again assures that the directory will always be
present (wine-unstable is also a metapackage without any content).
> Filed as serious since it is a violation of a must directive in
> policy, and also since a package with these flaws will
> currently get this package rejected. See
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/10/msg00004.html
> for details. This means the package has been deemed too buggy to be in
> Debian.
No, I'm pretty sure the wine-unstable currently waiting in incoming was
not rejected. It contains lintian overrides. Decision based on feedback
from Lintian bug #553493.
I also happen to have a minor problem with your rhetoric, where by
saying "deemed too buggy to be in Debian", you make it sound like your
presumption of an automatic rejection is equivalent to a democratic (or
maybe Cabal) consensus to evict this package from Debian forever, and
all because of a technical lintian issue that's not actually a real
problem in this package, due to the nature of its dependency chains. I
think you could have left that sentence out.
--- End Message ---
Reply to: