On 27.03.2018 18:39, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Matthias Klose, 2018-03-27] >> On 26.03.2018 19:32, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Here's a list of packages that will FTBFS soon if dh-python will not be >>> added to Build-Depends (it's time to drop dh-python from python3's >>> Depends and old version of dh_python2 from python package). >>> >>> http://people.debian.org/~piotr/dh_python3_without_dh-python.list >>> http://people.debian.org/~piotr/dh_python3_without_dh-python.ddlist >>> http://people.debian.org/~piotr/dh_python2_without_dh-python.list >>> http://people.debian.org/~piotr/dh_python2_without_dh-python.ddlist >>> >>> The plan is to report bugs first and follow up with changes in -defaults >>> packages in April or May. >> >> These lists have way to many false positives. So please, don't file bug >> reports >> before checking these manually. > > can you name some so that I can try to figure out what went wrong?
yes. please see below for a description of such packages. Or you might share the approach how you did construct those lists you posted. >> You have to exclude all these source packages using python/python3 as a b-d >> only >> and which don't build any binary packages without any python/python3 >> dependency >> in the packages, e.g. gcc-defaults. > > gcc-defaults is not a false positive, it calls `dh_python2 -plibgcj-common` > but doesn't > depend on dh-python well, this one not anymore.
