Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 09:36:57AM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote: If you depend on newer features than those guaranteed by the debconf-2.0 interface, you will need to depend on the providers of those features explicitly, *without* an or on debconf-2.0. Thanks. I did'nt realize this fact. So if I get you right the solution would be to get rid of the debconf-2.0 dependency. If I do so lintian is fine, but I guess Joey Hess is not: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html (and follow-ups) This post was the reason why I included this dependency in the first place. As the debconf-2.0 package's purpose is to allow transition to cdebconf, is depending on cdebconf explicitely as an alternative to debconf an option? How compatible are those 'alternatives' currently. Yes, the best solution available today would be to use Depends: debconf (= 1.3.22) | cdebconf (= ??) I don't know what minimum version of cdebconf (if any) you should specify to get support for settitle. Cheers, -- 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
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Op vr 23 dec 2005 om 02:31:16 -0800 schreef Steve Langasek: I don't know what minimum version of cdebconf (if any) you should specify to get support for settitle. From the changelog: cdebconf (0.43) Add new command SETTITLE Bye, Joost signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Russ Allbery wrote: I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well. If cdebconf implements that protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well. Any later version 2.x of the debconf protocol is intended to be backwards compatible with 2.0. In practice, new commands such as SETTITLE and the PROGRESS stuff can be added to the protocol without increasing the version number since earlier versions of debconf can skip doing anything for these commands with no undue effects (although if you want this to work, you'll need to || true your db_settitle commands in a shell script). The CAPB interface also allows for larger change to the protocol without increasing the version number. I wouldn't object to a version 2.1 being added to the protocol, but getting anything into the policy manual has become to much of a pain for me to bother with myself. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Hi! On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 12:37:20PM +0100, Joost van Baal wrote: Op vr 23 dec 2005 om 02:31:16 -0800 schreef Steve Langasek: I don't know what minimum version of cdebconf (if any) you should specify to get support for settitle. From the changelog: cdebconf (0.43) Add new command SETTITLE Thanks. I added cdebconf (= 0.43) as an alternative to the debconf dependency. Now, all should be fine -- lintian is. Cheers, Michael -- GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke ICQ: 48230050 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:18:13PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
The strange thing is, that I have the following line in the control file:
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, iptables (=1.2.11), gawk, debconf (=1.3.22) |
debconf-2.0
There is clearly a versioned debconf dependency. The above line is
expanded to the following when building the package.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, iptables (= 1.2.11), gawk,
debconf (= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Does anybody know where the problem is?
It's pretty likely that the lintian check is buggy in this case;
nevertheless, your depends: line is *also* buggy.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, debconf (= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Reduces to
Depends: debconf (= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
*but*, this in turn reduces to
Depends: debconf-2.0
because there are versions of debconf older than 1.3.22 which provide
debconf-2.0 (the Provides: was introduced in debconf 1.2.30), so they
satisfy the second branch of the dependency relationship when they
*shouldn't*.
If you depend on newer features than those guaranteed by the debconf-2.0
interface, you will need to depend on the providers of those features
explicitly, *without* an or on debconf-2.0.
Thanks. I did'nt realize this fact. So if I get you right the solution
would be to get rid of the debconf-2.0 dependency. If I do so lintian is
fine, but I guess Joey Hess is not:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg00136.html
(and follow-ups)
This post was the reason why I included this dependency in the first
place.
As the debconf-2.0 package's purpose is to allow transition to cdebconf,
is depending on cdebconf explicitely as an alternative to debconf an
option? How compatible are those 'alternatives' currently.
Cheers,
Michael
--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke
ICQ: 48230050
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Russ Allbery said: I hate to say this, since actually implementing it is a lot of work in supporting programs like debhelper, but if the debconf-2.0 pseudopackage was introduced prior to a new feature in the debconf interface there needs to be a debconf-2.1 or debconf-3.0 as well. If cdebconf implements that protocol, it can provide that pseudopackage as well. Agreed. IANADD, but I would depend on debconf-2.1 and when anybody complains point to russ's message. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Hi!
I'm preparing a package which uses debconf. When I run lintian on the
package the following error is reported:
E: arno-iptables-firewall: settitle-requires-versioned-depends config
N:
N: Debconf only supports the SETTITLE command as of version 1.3.22. To
N: ensure upgrades work correctly, packages that use this new command
N: should declare a dependency on that version of debconf.
N:
The strange thing is, that I have the following line in the control file:
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, iptables (=1.2.11), gawk, debconf (=1.3.22) |
debconf-2.0
There is clearly a versioned debconf dependency. The above line is
expanded to the following when building the package.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, iptables (= 1.2.11), gawk, debconf
(= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Does anybody know where the problem is?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Michael
--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke
ICQ: 48230050
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
Michael Hanke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm preparing a package which uses debconf. When I run lintian on the
package the following error is reported:
E: arno-iptables-firewall: settitle-requires-versioned-depends config
N:
N: Debconf only supports the SETTITLE command as of version 1.3.22. To
N: ensure upgrades work correctly, packages that use this new command
N: should declare a dependency on that version of debconf.
N:
The strange thing is, that I have the following line in the control file:
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, iptables (=1.2.11), gawk, debconf (=1.3.22) |
debconf-2.0
There is clearly a versioned debconf dependency. The above line is
expanded to the following when building the package.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, iptables (= 1.2.11), gawk, debconf
(= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Does anybody know where the problem is?
I wonder if lintian is getting confused by the dependency added by
${misc:Depends} and missing the second dependency that is tighter.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lintian error about missing debconf dependency (which is not missing)
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:35:52PM +0100, Michael Hanke wrote:
I'm preparing a package which uses debconf. When I run lintian on the
package the following error is reported:
E: arno-iptables-firewall: settitle-requires-versioned-depends config
N:
N: Debconf only supports the SETTITLE command as of version 1.3.22. To
N: ensure upgrades work correctly, packages that use this new command
N: should declare a dependency on that version of debconf.
N:
The strange thing is, that I have the following line in the control file:
Depends: ${misc:Depends}, iptables (=1.2.11), gawk, debconf (=1.3.22) |
debconf-2.0
There is clearly a versioned debconf dependency. The above line is
expanded to the following when building the package.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, iptables (= 1.2.11), gawk, debconf
(= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Does anybody know where the problem is?
It's pretty likely that the lintian check is buggy in this case;
nevertheless, your depends: line is *also* buggy.
Depends: debconf (= 0.5) | debconf-2.0, debconf (= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
Reduces to
Depends: debconf (= 1.3.22) | debconf-2.0
*but*, this in turn reduces to
Depends: debconf-2.0
because there are versions of debconf older than 1.3.22 which provide
debconf-2.0 (the Provides: was introduced in debconf 1.2.30), so they
satisfy the second branch of the dependency relationship when they
*shouldn't*.
If you depend on newer features than those guaranteed by the debconf-2.0
interface, you will need to depend on the providers of those features
explicitly, *without* an or on debconf-2.0.
Cheers,
--
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
