-=| gregor herrmann, 30.03.2016 18:16:29 +0200 |=- > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 17:09:32 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: > > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 08:29:04 +0000, Niels Thykier wrote: > > > Damyan Ivanov: > > > > What I am not clear about is whether this interface to apt-file is > > > > something new that is not available in stable. If so, we'd need either > > > > a suitable dependency or some kind of legacy support? > > > > If this is a new interface I'd probably opt to adding the dependency > > > > and let stable users provide a patch :) > [..] > > > It is a new interface that requires APT 1.1 (or so). It is not > > > available in stable and nor do I expect it to be backported (though the > > > APT maintainers could prove me wrong here). > > > > Currently we have > > Recommends: apt-file (>= 2.5.0), > > and my idea was to bump this to >= 3. > > > > apt-file itself has Depends: apt (>= 1.1.8); we could maybe also use > > the same term; OTOH having apt-file explicitly makes it clearer what > > this is about ... > > > > I've now merged the changes into master, bumped the Recommends on > > apt-file to >= 3 (but I'm also fine with going for apt directly), and > > added a changelog entry. > > Any opinions on 'apt-file (>= 3)' vs. 'apt (>= 1.1.8)'?
I think 'apt-file (>= 3)' is better, since we use apt-file's interface, not apt directly. As I understand it, what other dependencies apt has in order to provide its new interface does not concern dh-make-perl but apt-file's dependencies. (Except if apt-file's new functionality were somewhat optional and apt-file had no hard dependency on apt 1.1.8, in which case it seems to me an additional recommendation in dh-make-perl would be proper) -- dam
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
