On 2023-08-19 10:03 +0200, Diederik de Haas wrote: > [please CC me as I'm not subscribed to debian-devel] > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 21:45:13 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote: >> On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 at 00:07, Simon McVittie wrote: >> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2023 at 22:38:20 +1000, Hugh McMaster wrote: >> > > Currently, there are 219 build-dependencies and 29 (direct) >> > > dependencies on libfreetype6-dev, which has been released with >> > > bullseye and bookworm. >> > >> > Lintian diagnoses this as "[build-]depends-on-obsolete-package" since >> > 2.116.0 (MR at [1], instances of the relevant tags listed at [2] and >> > [3]) which will hopefully help progress towards dropping the transitional >> > package. >> >> Thanks for pointing this out. I wasn't aware Lintian had started >> flagging dependencies on obsolete packages some 10 months ago. >> >> Having Lintian issue a warning or error instead of bug filing is preferable. > > While it's true that lintian did issue an error, now that src:freetype has > been updated and libfreetype6-dev has been dropped, there are a number of > packages which hadn't been updated and now FTBFS.
Could you please name an example? > AFAIUI there are people and/or tools which periodically rebuild packages to > see if a 'sudden' change has caused a FTBFS and that then gets followed up by > a MBF effort. > As the FTBFS wrt libfreetype6-dev was predicted and announced [1], wouldn't it > have been better if the MBF had taken place? At the time I recommended just removing the libfreetype6-dev package[2], based on my experience with the transitional -dev packages in ncurses, where this approach worked without a hitch. What is different in freetype? > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00193.html Cheers, Sven 2. https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/07/msg00195.html
