Hi On 2014-07-01 12:10:30, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > Yaroslav Halchenko <y...@debian.org> wrote: > > > are you sure Jay? ;) > > > > From the beginning it had build-depends on > > > > libtiff4-dev | libtiff-dev > > > > So I do not think there should be really a problem building it and at > > best this issue is of normal severity to swap those bdepends order. Or am I > > wrong? > > > > I see that libtiff4-dev is still in sid so we can't even 'check' to be 100% > > sure that anything gets broken, right? (buildd's environments iirc might > > indeed > > puke requiring first one to be the present one) > > Yeah, I think that should be fine. Sorry about that -- my script to find > all affected packages just looked for build dependencies on > libtiff4-dev. I didn't think to filter out the case where it was an > alternative with libtiff-dev or libtiff5-dev. Feel free to just close > the bugs. If I get some time, I may go through the remaining 24 open > bugs and see if others are like that as well. Thanks.
No, it's not fine. Buildds only consider the first alternative, so if libtiff4-dev no longer exists, the package won't be able to build on the buildds. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
