On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 01:45:05AM +0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote: > > > Package: python3-alembic > > > Version: 1.0.0-2~bpo9+1 > > > Depends: python3-sqlalchemy (>= 1.0~), python3-sqlalchemy (<< 1.1)
Interesting. I didn't notice this.
I honestly don't know where the << 1.1 is coming from...
From the build log:
D: dh_python3 fs:243: package python3-alembic details = {'ext_vers': set(),
'nsp.txt': set(), 'egg-info': set(), 'shebangs': set(), 'compile': True,
'ext_no_version': set(), 'requires.txt':
{'debian/python3-alembic/usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/alembic-1.0.0.dev0.egg-info/requires.txt'},
'public_vers': {Version('3')}, 'private_dirs': {}}
D: dh_python3 depends:114: generating dependencies for package python3-alembic
D: dh_python3 pydist:137: trying to find dependency for Mako (python=None)
D: dh_python3 pydist:137: trying to find dependency for SQLAlchemy>=0.9.0
(python=None)
D: dh_python3 pydist:137: trying to find dependency for python-dateutil
(python=None)
D: dh_python3 pydist:137: trying to find dependency for python-editor>=0.3
(python=None)
D: dh_python3 depends:272: D={'python3-sqlalchemy (>= 1.0~), python3-sqlalchemy
(<< 1.1)', 'python3:any (>= 3.3.2-2~)', 'python3-mako', 'python3-dateutil',
'python3-editor'}; R=[]; S=[]; E=[], B=[]; RT=[]
The >= 1.0 is due to that version being what is set in d/control.
Forcing a build with the version of sqlalchemy in stretch-bpo makes it
become
D: dh_python3 depends:272: D={'python3:any (>= 3.3.2-2~)', 'python3-mako',
'python3-editor', 'python3-sqlalchemy (>= 0.9.0)', 'python3-dateutil'}; R=[];
S=[]; E=[], B=[]; RT=[]
(ignoring d/control?).
> > > The python3-sqlalchemy dependency is conflicting. The only way to resolve
> > > this is to downgrade python3-alembic to stretch version:
Which, btw, is fine, since mailman3 does not require alembic > 1.
> > > Perhaps this bug should be filed under python3-alembic to request
> > > backports upgrade (although buster is 1.0.0-2 too), but I wanted
> > > to make both maintainers and users of mailman3 aware of the issue.
> > > Please refile if necessary.
I think it should be moved under alembic, yes.
> Do you know why it is here? Where does it come from? Salsa doesn't seem
> to have any track of a stretch-backports branch.
Look better, it has a tag debian/1.0.0-2_bpo9+1 :)
I don't like branches for single no-changes rebuilds. Also, sources.d.o
would also allow you to have a (quite more authoritative) look at the
sources.
Now, bumping the build-dep to cause a more loose dependency to be
generated feels wrong to me, so I'd rather have somebody figure out
where that << 1 is coming from before doing that...
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
