Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Hi (again) Geoff,
<snip>
So the ${cdbs:Depends} substitution is empty. On lenny I'm using cdbs
0.4.52. Is ${cdbs:Depends} meant to work in the 0.4.52 cdbs package?
I'm not very familiar with cdbs, so I can't say. Or does this reveal a
bug that is hidden on squeeze and sid?
Above you only investigate runtime dependencies. CDBS is used at build
time, and indeed the package declares the following in debian/control:
Build-Depends: [...], cdbs (>= 0.4.72~)
Yes, I did find that in the build dependancies. It was one of the two
minor changes I'd already made to get my backporting working. (The other
one was changing how mktemp was called in a supporting script, but
that's not relevant to this bug report).
So no, it is not supposed to work with older releases of CDBS. And also
I believe that there is no bug in the packaging: you need to bacport
CDBS as well (or hack the packaging to avoid modern CDBS features).
I expected as much. By emailing you (and then following your suggestion
of lodging a bug report) I was hoping to learn how hack the package to
do this. I don't know cdbs, so I don't know how to hack around the
missing features when using the lenny cdbs. But I guess I'm going to
have to learn.
I recommend building packages using debuild (or a wrapper around that -
Personally I use cowbuilder from the package cowdancer) which should
properly check build-dependencies for you.
I use debuild, and as I mentioned, it did find those build dependancies.
I used reportbug to create this bug report, which automatically setup
a header saying 'Version: 1.9.3-1~bpo50-1'. As that is a version I
gave to my backport effort (and is not a version that the debian
archive has ever seen, and quite possibly won't see), I've removed
that header from this bug report.
Good that you mention this.
You should not need to remove the version hint, though - it is still
helpful even if slightly bogus.
I recommend, however, that you use a different hint than bpo for your
private backports: Use your initials or something else that more clearly
indicate separation from backports.debian.org.
That's an excellent suggestion, I'll do so in future.
I hereby close this as a non-bug. Feel free to continue posting to it
(only when "archived" is it closed for further input), especially if you
disagree with my judgement and would like the bugreport reopened.
I don't disagree with you about the issue being a non-bug, so the bug
report can remain closed.
Kind regards,
- Jonas
Cheers,
Geoff Crompton
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
