On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:49:09PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > > Build-Depends: autoconf-archive, > > - debhelper (>= 11), > > + debhelper (>= 12), > > + debhelper-compat (= 12), > > libbz2-dev, > > libtar-dev, > > Interesting, I would have thought debhelper would FTBFS this with: > > dh: warning: Please specify the debhelper compat level exactly once. > dh: warning: * debian/compat requests compat 12. > dh: warning: * debian/control requests compat 12 via "debhelper-compat > (= 12)" > dh: warning: > dh: warning: Hint: If you just added a build-dependency on > debhelper-compat, then please remember to remove debian/compat > dh: warning: > dh: error: debhelper compat level specified both in debian/compat and via > build-dependency on debhelper-compat
That only happens if you ship d/compat AND have debhelper-compat in the build-deps. It is not related to having debhelper in the build-deps. If fact, there are documented use cases where you *need* have have both debhelper and debhelper-compat (an example, if you rely on the udeb auto-detection from dh_makeshlibs 12.3, you need "debhelper-compat (= 12)" AND "debhelper (>= 12.3)" (or just d-copat=13 now…)). > Alternatively, if the build-profile means that the *debhelper-compat* > dependency is ignored and there is no debian/compat, would it not mean > that it would FTBFS with a "no debian/compat file"? The "extra restrictions (build profiles, etc)" I was referring to is related to the "debhelper" build-dep, not "debhelper-compat", sorry for not being precise. However now, thinking again, I can't think of a good reason to have a version of debhelper <= of that of debhelper-compat even with a build profile, I'm not sure what I was thinking about. :3 -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature