On 2022-02-24 Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org> wrote: > I favor moving away from pre-dh7 packages and I support people pushing for > it. But I > am in intriguing situation with this effort. Can someone help me.
> At: https://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/autoremovals.cgi > I see: > Osamu Aoki <os...@debian.org> > debian-history: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days > debian-reference: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days > maint-guide: buggy deps xdelta3, flagged for removal in 28.4 days > These are all COMPAT=13 packages with d/control having: > > Build-Depends: debhelper-compat (= 13) > Thus, it doesn't make sense to be connected to > > xdelta3: Removal of obsolete debhelper compat 5 and 6 in bookworm > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=965883 > Also, these packages are not even listed in the original hit list: > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/07/msg00065.html > I have been using at least compat=8 since 2013 for 2 of these packages > and compat=7 since 2010 for another. So I can't figure out why these > packages are suddenly flagged. [...] Hello, Afaiui xdelta3 was (see below) rc-buggy, because it used dh 5 or 6 and was therefore marked for autoremoval. Afaik autoremovals are recursive, i.e. we do not make packages uninstallable by removing their dependencies but instead also remove these depending packages. I think this also extends to build-dependencies, we do not want unbuildable packages in testing so these would be removed, too. The respective set of xdelta3 is probly huge, it includes e.g. pristine-tar. I suspect debian-history et al are part of this set. This is probably very academic now since Andreas Tille has uploaded a fixed xdelta3 package today. - Just doublecheck after the next britney run whether debian-history ist still marked for removal. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
