That was impressively fast, thank you! That said, I'm worried about two things:
1. debhelper (>= 9) is not going to be satisfiable, so this will cause at least the package I'm looking at to have gone from just incomplete build-dependencies to being unbuildable. Is the right thing to do to CDBS_BUILD_DEPENDS_rules_debhelper_v9 manually in debian/rules? In any case, I wonder if any packages currently in unstable/testing will FTBFS now.
2. Dropping the versioned build-dependencies on debhelper (>= 6) and (>= 7.0.1) is probably going to get you more complaints along the lines of http://bugs.debian.org/537240 :-)
For me I care about the second point less, since the oldest thing I have to support (Hardy) has debhelper 7.0.13 in backports. Since it's a known difference-of-opinion with Lintian and not unintentional, that's fine.
-- Geoffrey Thomas http://ldpreload.com geo...@ldpreload.com On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report which was filed against the cdbs package: #641253: cdbs: Missing debhelper build-dep at compat 8 or higher It has been closed by Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk>. Their explanation is attached below along with your original report. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> by replying to this email. -- 641253: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641253 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
