Hello,
this is not explained in the FAQ, but the way I have done it is like this
(in build-depends, removed irrelevant parts):
python (>= 2.6.6-2) | base-files (>= 11),
python-all-dbg (>= 2.6.6-2) | base-files (>= 11),
python-all-dev (>= 2.6.6-2) | base-files (>= 11),
python-setuptools | base.files (>= 11),
scons,
python3-all-dev (>= 3.3),
python3-all-dbg (>= 3.3),
python3-setuptools,
python-appdirs | base-files (>= 11),
python3-appdirs | base-files (<< 7.2),
python-pil | python-imaging | base-files (>= 11),
python3-pil | base-files (<< 11),
The reason being, that Nuitka is built for older Debian and Ubuntu
distributions in Neurodebian as well. This is not pretty, but has been a
strategy used for a long time now, although more reduced, see the Python3
appdirs dependency.
In dependencies there is then this:
python3-appdirs | base-files (<< 7.2),
python-dev (>= 2.6.6-2) | base-files (>= 11),
python3-dev,
${misc:Depends},
${python:Depends},
${python3:Depends}
That should not cause an issue. I have a bullseye based builder, where my
package doesn't build, but the next one will (some rules check to discover
Debian 11 fails on "testing", but not for "unstable"), and I had to make
actual fixes with e.g. the tests not using "#!/usr/bin/env python" as that
won't work anymore, so I am convinced it pulls in no python2 package.
Are you saying, that portable control files like these are disallowed? Or
is simply the case, that I should put it in a different order, e.g.
"base-files (>= 11) | ..." and your checker tools (which I assume found
this) will be happier? As I said, in the past, I have used this approach to
disallow tools that were not usable.
Recommending python-xml will be replaced with python3-xml or simply
removed, but lxml will later become a dependency, where similar problems
will appear.
Please advise.
Yours,
Kay
