On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:07:58 +0100 Sebastian Dröge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Otherwise it makes packages fail to build. > > > > > Which packages fail to build? > > > > Setting bugs to serious or higher needs detailed reasons so that the bug > > can be fixed in a sane manner. > > > > This seems more like an error in the pkgconfig file for libgphoto2. The > > source package already build-depends on libltdl3-dev. > > > > It might be true that libgphoto2.pc should specify -ltdl3 in Requires: > > or in Requires.private: but that is not a "serious" severity. > > > > For the benefit of the bug report, what I *think* this report is trying > > to achieve is to have libtdl3-dev brought in when building against > > libgphoto2-2-dev and, to me, this appears to be an upstream issue in the > > pkgconfig file and (to a lesser degree) the Depends: line for > > libgphoto2-2-dev in debian/control. > > > > Yes, it is a good idea for packages to fix the pkgconfig data and to > > ensure that extra dependencies are handled, necessary dependencies are > > retained etc.etc. but I don't see how that can be RC severity for Lenny. > > Hi, > first of all, this is no bug of the pkg-config file or something. If there are missing symbols when linking against this library, that info should be in the pkgconfig data, under Requires. Are there missing symbols in your build? > It's caused by libtool being a bit insane in several situations, just > take a look at your .la files. I'm not the maintainer, I'm just reviewing the bug report as it still seems to be unnecessarily severe and the report itself incomplete. *If* your answers are sane and complete, I may be able to close this bug as an NMU so do me a favour and provide a full build log. > You must let your -dev package depend on > all packages that are listed in dependency_libs there, otherwise it > simply won't be possible to link to your library, no matter if it is > really needed by the code or not (and it isn't here it seems). Not necessarily - the -dev depends on what is *exported* by the API. > The solution for this was dropping the .la file (attention, requires > rebuild of all packages that have your library in their .la file) in > many Gnome packages. I see no evidence for that statement (or for removing .la files in the first place). > Well, the package that fails to build otherwise is gvfs (from > experimental). Which depends on another package in experimental and which, therefore is somewhat low on the list of things to get done before Lenny. > I've added a build dependency on libltdl3-dev for now to > work around this but just build it without from a clean pbuilder chroot > to see the problem. I see no reason for this bug to be of serious severity this close to a release when the *only* package affected might be one in experimental. What is the problem with having such a build dependency in your experimental package? Any extra dependency in your package can be fixed when gvfs actually gets into unstable. >From my original post: > Yes, it is a good idea for packages to fix the pkgconfig data and to > ensure that extra dependencies are handled, necessary dependencies are > retained etc.etc. but I don't see how that can be RC severity for Lenny. So, again, why does this bug need to be severity: serious ??? It may be important to you, it may be a good thing to fix but it is not Release-Critical - principally because it involves a package that is not yet a candidate for Lenny. Personally, I would put it at wishlist but I downgraded it to normal initially. Please take a wider view of this problem and consider whether you reverted the severity in haste. You have failed to show any reason why it should be release-critical. The triviality of the obvious workaround and the lack of any effect on any package actually forming part of the Lenny release make it impossible for me to see why this should be on my todo list. Justify the severity or CC debian-devel to find a consensus on whether this *is* an RC bug or merely an annoyance for a single package in experimental that has no bearing on the Lenny release. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpm0Ishmtd88.pgp
Description: PGP signature
