Great, thanks for your work - I should indeed have done that myself a long time ago :|
-- Yann ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Chris Hofstaedtler" <[email protected]> > À: "Santiago Vila" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "Holger Levsen" <[email protected]>, "Niels > Thykier" <[email protected]>, "Guillem > Jover" <[email protected]>, "Yann Dirson" <[email protected]>, "Helmut > Grohne" <[email protected]> > Envoyé: Mercredi 18 Décembre 2024 22:07:45 > Objet: Bug#1068809: dh-buildinfo: consider deprecating and removing the > package > > * Santiago Vila <[email protected]> [241218 15:12]: > > > Fewer than 20 packages will need changes, some of these packages > > > have been asked to be removed themselves. If we have no immediate > > > urgency in getting rid of src:dh-buildinfo, I think it's > > > manageable. > > > > Hi. There was no immediate urgency in getting rid of > > src:dh-buildinfo, > > but if I'm not mistaken, those 20 packages, which currently > > have BD: dh-buildinfo and explicitly call dh_buildinfo in > > debian/rules, > > will now FTBFS regardless of src:dh-buildinfo existing or not > > (due to the Provides added to debhelper). > > I've NMUed all packages that were going to FTBFS, and had no open RM > bug or FTBFSed already. > > > If that's actually the case (can someone please confirm?), then it > > would seem that we could ask for src:dh-buildinfo to be removed > > now. > > Yes, dh-buildinfo can now be removed. > > > (Probably by reassigning this bug to ftp.debian.org). > > (Might be best to clone + reassign, but leaving this to whomever > does it.) > > Chris >
