On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Arno Töll <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Thibaut,
Hi Arno, > On 07.04.2012 11:24, Thibaut VARENE wrote: >> False positive and -EWTF? >> >> My package build-deps on: "apache2-dev | apache2-threaded-dev" > > buildds do not resolve A | B build-dependencies. They look at the first > alternative only. Sweet. Have to wonder about the actual use of alternative build-deps ;P >> Also, I'm not sure I get the point of asking maintainers to remove >> build-dep on apache2-dev in favor of apache2-threaded-dev when Apache >> 2.4 will require the exact opposite... > > Yes, that's a bit unfortunate and this was primarily just for your > information. You can completely ignore this bug, but you should at least > know about the problem. Well, I'm about to do a bugfix upload of my package, so I guess I can't just ignore the bug for now and I will have to do the build-dep dance. It also means I cannot upload a package that will nicely build with both apache-2.2 AND apache-2.4 from the same source, which I was planning to do to ease backporting work. Bummer. > I realize this generates unnecessary work for you, but the alternative > would be to require people to declare a versioned build-dependency for > all 73 affected reverse dependencies until we get rid of the 2.2 -dev > packages entirely. I'm not versed into the specifics, but all I can say is that I liked the idea of the status quo, that is, don't break something that worked well for so long. Maybe it couldn't be done ;-P Cheers -- Thibaut VARENE http://www.parisc-linux.org/~varenet/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
