Package: dpkg Version: 1.15.7.2 Severity: important User: debian-powerpc...@breakpoint.cc Usertags: powerpcspe
I'm actually a little unsure if this is a dpkg bug or a package bug, but I have had build failures from several packages which have Build-Depends like the following: (trimmed example from the gvfs-1.6.2-1 source package) libudev-dev (>= 0.139) | not+linux-gnu, libfuse-dev | hurd, libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) | linux-gnu, libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) | not+linux-gnu, libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) | not+linux-gnu, libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) | not+linux-gnu, libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.9.7) | hurd Unfortunately it seems like the "powerpcspe" and "armel" architectures do not provide the virtual packages "linux-gnu" and they do provide the virtual package "not+linux-gnu", although if I change those deps to "linux" and "not+linux" then they behave as expected. This seems to be related to the fact that the triplettable entries for those architectures map them as "linux-gnuspe" and "linux-gnueabi" respectively, instead of "linux-gnu". On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain those package dependencies are compliant with current Debian Policy. I believe those package dependencies should be written as follows: libudev-dev (>= 0.139) [linux-any], libfuse-dev [!hurd-any], libhal-dev (>= 0.5.10) [!linux-any], libgdu-dev (>= 2.29.0) [linux-any], libgudev-1.0-dev (>= 001) [linux-any], libbluetooth-dev (>= 4.0) [linux-any], libimobiledevice-dev (>= 0.97) [!hurd-any] So I guess the question is whether the "linux-gnu" vs. "not+linux-gnu" behavior is correct, or alternatively whether or not it violates policy. If the latter, perhaps dpkg-buildpackage should be patched to issue very loud warnings when those dependencies are detected as they are known to have incorrect behaviour on some platforms. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
