Jan Wagner wrote: > On Friday, 29. January 2010, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: >> Jan Wagner wrote: >>> I stumbled upon the same problem on backporting. From my point of view, >>> user of you package don't have the track down the versioned build-dep of >>> the packages. >> From my point of view, users should not backport packages. We didn't >> release dh_ocaml 0.9 for lenny, I'm pretty sure of that. > > Who should do backports in your eyes? Debian Developers? Maintainers? Nobody?
Certainly, not users. And, let's make that clear: it's not "in my eyes". Ask other DDs or DMs about this particular question if you want to have another opinion. At least, ask the usual maintainer for review before proposing a backport. Doing otherwise seems wrong to me (unless you are very confident with the code). > Anyways ... you should provide correct (build-)dependencies, even if it would > be better, if debhelper would provide a way to define such versioned dep for > its own. > We already provide correct build-dependencies. Here, the only missing thing is that our dh_ocaml uses features from debhleper 7.1.0. The package dh-ocaml do not contain only the dh_ocaml script and ocaml sequence, but also some other dev-tools. I see two solutions: - Make dh-ocaml depend on debhelper >= 7.1.0 (the exact version that introduced the desired feature). But, I'm not really convinced that this is the right solution because we may use all what dh-ocaml ships but dh_ocaml. - Make dh-ocaml conflicts with debhelper << 7.1.0. But this solution seems also wrong for the same reason I mentioned before. If you have a better/real solution, please share with us. If not, I will not accept any of the solutions I've mentioned because the problem arises *only* for the backport. Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org