Bug#327151: missing dependency on devscripts
I suggest that the following be applied. This removes the devscripts dependency altogether, as it's not needed. diff -Nru /tmp/BKSAoZWDbV/cdbs-0.4.32/scripts/cdbs-edit-patch /tmp/15PktvE0NM/cdbs-0.4.33/scripts/cdbs-edit-patch --- /tmp/BKSAoZWDbV/cdbs-0.4.32/scripts/cdbs-edit-patch 2005-04-20 14:01:34.0 +0200 +++ /tmp/15PktvE0NM/cdbs-0.4.33/scripts/cdbs-edit-patch 2005-11-30 00:02:24.0 +0100 @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ # create clean source package in temporary dir cp -a . $TMP/$ORIGDIR cd $TMP/$ORIGDIR -debclean +debian/rules clean # create an empty patch if necessary so that the following loop stops at the # lexicographic patch position -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327151: missing dependency on devscripts
severity 327151 normal thanks Vorlon is right, this script is optionnal, or even extra-optionnal, and thus adding a Suggests line would be sufficient. -- Marc Dequènes (Duck) pgpn32GunNytq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#327151: missing dependency on devscripts
Package: cdbs Version: 0.4.32 Severity: serious Justification: violation of release policy (clause 2) The command cdbs-edit-patch requires the command debclean to operate, which is in package devscripts, but there is no dependency or other relationship declared to that package. I think it may be simpler to peek into what dpatch-edit-patch does. AFAICT, it doesn't need debclean, probably calls debian/rules clean directly. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327151: missing dependency on devscripts
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:12:54AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Package: cdbs Version: 0.4.32 Severity: serious Justification: violation of release policy (clause 2) The command cdbs-edit-patch requires the command debclean to operate, which is in package devscripts, but there is no dependency or other relationship declared to that package. Strictly speaking, opportunistic dependencies are allowed; if a package includes optional utilities that are not required for the main purpose of the package, it is generally considered acceptable to not list the dependencies of those optional utilities. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature