On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 23:59, Jacob Luna Lundberg <ja...@gnifty.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:07:37PM +0800, Aron Xu wrote: >> retitle 636188 Please use libreadline-gplv2-dev instead of libreadline5-dev >> thanks > > I will prepare a new version using libreadline-gplv2-dev. Thank you for > pointing out the license issue. >
Thanks, :-) >> Again, please check your package is buildable with pbuilder/cowbuilder >> or even in a plain sid chroot. As the package's maintainer, it's your >> responsibility to make sure all of the problems do not exist before >> you ask for sponsorship. > > I don't appreciate this comment. The package built on my sid desktop > and using pbuilder on sid both i386 and amd64 yesterday. I still have > the logs and here's what it said about that dep: > > pbuilder-satisfydepends-dummy depends on libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev; however: > Package libreadline5-dev is not installed. > Package libreadline6-dev is not installed. > [...] > Get: 95 http://http.us.debian.org/debian/ sid/main libreadline6-dev i386 6.2-2 [247 kB] > [...] > Selecting previously deselected package libreadline6-dev. > Unpacking libreadline6-dev (from .../libreadline6-dev_6.2-2_amd64.deb) ... > [...] > dpkg-buildpackage: full upload (original source is included) > > You seem to have some mistaken information about pbuilder, or at least > specific to your own installation of it. BTW I also ran it through > lintian. > But it is true that Debian buildd only takes the first candidate. Even now you have pbuilder tested, it will eventually FTBFS on buildd if it get uploaded. When I meet this problem for the first time I argued that it was something wrong with buildd, and debian-policy said we could do this - but buildd is an exception because it needs to produce certain results from certain build-dep, so I gave up arguing. I'm not blaming you, and if my words let you think I was blaming, then I'd apologize. But what you have done in the packaging reveals some problems: As you have written "libreadline5-dev | libreadline6-dev", then I assume you have the sense that there is probably license issue with libreadline6-dev, so you choose libreadline5-dev over it by default, and you keep the latter one because it might be useful for those who want to compile binary packages themselves. OK, then you need to check whether your build is correct, by running lintian *and* checking the build log at least. You have tested it with lintian already, then you forgot to check your log. IMHO checking the log can probably discover some sensitive (legal) problems and/or technical problems (for example, unusual warnings or errors, but the build system are mis-configured to not fail). So, please do it from now on. (PS: we are all aware that lintian is a piece of software, is just a tool, it can help us check errors, but that's not all we need to do.) -- Regards, Aron Xu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
