Sorry, that was stupid of me. That said, dkms's dependencies are weird; it depends on "make | build-essential | dpkg-dev", which is a rather weird set, since buildessential depends on make and dpkg-dev, and dpkg-dev itself depends on make as well. If it really just means 'make', it should depend only on 'make', and dkms-using packages should depend on things like libc-dev. If it means other stuff from build-essential as well, build-essential shouldn't be just one of several options. The dependency structure of dkms kind of invites occasional brokenness.
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 18:43, Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> wrote: > fixed 607903 openafs-modules-dkms/1.5.77-1 > thanks > > Phil Miller <pmil...@hmc.edu> writes: > >> build-essential depends on "libc6-dev | libc-dev", and is assumed for >> building any packages, per Policy 4.2. > > Yeah, but DKMS modules are something of a special case because the end > user isn't building the package. They're just installing a DKMS-enabled > package, and the building happens as part of the package installation. > That means that the dependencies do need to be there for the compilation > to work. > > DKMS itself doesn't depend on build-essential because building the average > kernel module doesn't require userspace development headers, but OpenAFS > is weird. > > This bug has been fixed for a while in Git, but along with other things > that aren't suitable for the current deep freeze. (It is fixed in > experimental, though, so I'll leave it marked closed but with the correct > version information.) But there's an upstream security patch that I need > to upload for squeeze anyway, so I'll fix this along with. I should be > able to get to that in the next couple of days. > > -- > Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
