On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 06:39:58PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > Using "valac (>= not-yet-in-archive) | valac-0.XX" is something > I've done myself many times and it definitely worked on > Debian buildds.
No, really. That will fail too. Again, I've changed this package to depend on valac (>= 99) | valac-0.99 | valac Selected output: | Installing build dependencies | Reading package lists... | Building dependency tree... | Reading state information... | Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have | requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable | distribution that some required packages have not yet been created | or been moved out of Incoming. | The following information may help to resolve the situation: | | The following packages have unmet dependencies: | sbuild-build-depends-lxsession-dummy : Depends: valac (>= 99) but it is not going to be installed | E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. | apt-get failed. | Package installation failed | Not removing build depends: cloned chroot in use [..] | ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ | │ Summary │ | └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ [..] | Status: failed Perhaps try it yourself using sbuild? I assure you that it will only pick the first, like the manpage says. > As far as I know it's the > recommended way to depend on a valac version which has > not yet been made the default. There may be a way of locking it into depwait in wanna-build, but then you need to binNMU the package you built to not be built against the wrong valac... > So I have to say - No, really - it doesn't! :P Don't take my word for it -- try it at home -- fun for the whole family! :) > > Ah! Better information to add; if all these packages are already rc-buggy, > > noting which are that you're intending to break would be very helpful > > indeed. > > I'm not sure what you're telling me here, sorry. I'm saying, if you plan on causing a package in unstable to ftbfs, please include why you think it's OK. > If you say it's ok to consider > the archive a sesspool of abandoned old crap, then I'm ok with it Please don't take that tone. We're here during our free time to help, there's no need to become aggresive. No, I'm saying, please be up front with breakage that may happen in unstable, so that it can be considered for removal dispite the breakage, which can happen if the package is already rc-buggy. Surely you don't think that's too much to ask? Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
