On 17/12/16 17:40, Christian Seiler wrote: > On 12/17/2016 04:49 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> In my reSIProcate control[1] file, I included the following: >> >> Build-Depends: ... , libssl-dev (<< 1.1) | libssl1.0-dev (>= 1.0.0), ... >> >> pdebuild correctly builds it for sid with libssl1.0-dev from openssl1.0[2] >> >> In the buildd[3] report, it says that libssl-dev is uninstallable on >> every platform, it doesn't appear to try libssl1.0-dev >> >> Is buildd sensitive to the order of the dependencies when multiple >> options are given? Or is there some other glitch here? > > sbuild will always use the first alternative of build > dependencies. If you're doing this to make backporting easier, > then I'm afraid that won't work - you'll have to manually > change the B-D for backports. >
I'm really hoping to focus my energy on upstream dev and reduce the effort for packaging. Adding another extra step for supporting backports doesn't feel good. Multiply this extra effort over all the packages that people backport and the net effect is that some people will stop backporting or will do it more slowly and the number of up-to-date backports we have may be slightly less than what it otherwise would be. There are similar problems with the change from libmysqlclient-dev to default-libmysqlclient-dev. Is it possible for a stable update of the jessie version of openssl to add something like this: Provides: libssl1.0-dev in the control file and would that ensure it works without tweaks? Regards, Daniel
