On Jul 29, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So what are they *supposed* to depend on, only inet-superserver? I'm Yes. Actually "openbsd-inetd | inet-superserver", since it is a virtual package.
> failing to extract a clear guideline from half-remembered debian-devel > discussions (as is clear from the fact that I apparently got the lintian > check wrong). Is this documented somewhere that anyone could expect to > find it? Probably not, but in this case common sense would have been enough since update-inetd does not depend on anything else. > Currently, lintian allows any combination of dependencies on the following > packages to satisfy the dependency requirement from calling update-inetd > in maintainer scripts: > > update-inetd inet-superserver openbsd-inetd rlinetd > > I gather update-inetd should be removed from that list. Is it otherwise > correct? openbsd-inetd and rlinetd should be removed too since they provide inet-superserver (unless they are provided as alternatives to the virtual package). > > Some of these packages instead are only slightly less broken and depend > > both on inet-superserver and update-inetd, making impossible to install > > a future xinetd package providing its own /usr/sbin/update-inetd. > Should no package ever depend on update-inetd unless it also provides > inet-superserver? If so, I can add a lintian check for that. Correct. > If not, is > there something else that lintian can check for? Dependencies on netbase are almost always wrong too. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
