On 11-09-12 at 09:54am, Geoffrey Thomas wrote: > 1. debhelper (>= 9) is not going to be satisfiable, so this will cause > at least the package I'm looking at to have gone from just incomplete > build-dependencies to being unbuildable. Is the right thing to do to > CDBS_BUILD_DEPENDS_rules_debhelper_v9 manually in debian/rules? In any > case, I wonder if any packages currently in unstable/testing will > FTBFS now.
Yes, as described in the NEWS entry (please do install apt-listchanges if you don't use that already!) the proper thing to do for not-yet-finalized compatibility levels of debhelper is to override as you suggest above. Build-dependency autoresolving needs manual action (e.g. running the clean target with DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 set in environment). So nothing will break. > 2. Dropping the versioned build-dependencies on debhelper (>= 6) and > (>= 7.0.1) is probably going to get you more complaints along the > lines of http://bugs.debian.org/537240 :-) Sure. And if so, I will mark those as wontfix as well :-) > For me I care about the second point less, since the oldest thing I > have to support (Hardy) has debhelper 7.0.13 in backports. Since it's > a known difference-of-opinion with Lintian and not unintentional, > that's fine. CDBS should work properly with all releases of Debian since oldstable. If it breaks in Ubuntu in ways unreproducable in Debian, then that's an issue for Ubuntu to solve. Similar for backports: if unreproducible using Debian proper, then it is an issue for backporters to solve. That said, feel free to file any and all bugs against the Debian bugtracker if in doubt: bugs are easy to redirect or close if "bad". :-) Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
