On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:21:08PM +1100, Geoff Crompton wrote:
Jonas Smedegaard wrote:So the ${cdbs:Depends} substitution is empty. On lenny I'm using cdbs 0.4.52. Is ${cdbs:Depends} meant to work in the 0.4.52 cdbs package? I'm not very familiar with cdbs, so I can't say. Or does this reveal a bug that is hidden on squeeze and sid?Above you only investigate runtime dependencies. CDBS is used at build time, and indeed the package declares the following in debian/control:Build-Depends: [...], cdbs (>= 0.4.72~)Yes, I did find that in the build dependancies. It was one of the two minor changes I'd already made to get my backporting working. (The other one was changing how mktemp was called in a supporting script, but that's not relevant to this bug report).
Ah, ok.My guess on this mistake (although I wondered how your build tools could silently miss it too) sprung from your detailed describing dependencies while not at all mentioning build-dependencies - or did I perhaps somehow misread your original mail?
So no, it is not supposed to work with older releases of CDBS. And also I believe that there is no bug in the packaging: you need to bacport CDBS as well (or hack the packaging to avoid modern CDBS features).I expected as much. By emailing you (and then following your suggestion of lodging a bug report) I was hoping to learn how hack the package to do this. I don't know cdbs, so I don't know how to hack around the missing features when using the lenny cdbs. But I guess I'm going to have to learn.
Well, when not familiar with (the evolution of) a tool versioned build-depended on, my recommendation is to backport that tool: Repackaging around it often has a higher risk of the resulting package not behaving as intended.
Up-to-date CDBS should be easily backported on Lenny (and, I believe, on much older systems too).
I recommend building packages using debuild (or a wrapper around that - Personally I use cowbuilder from the package cowdancer) which should properly check build-dependencies for you.I use debuild, and as I mentioned, it did find those build dependancies.
If not just me missing that in your original email, I certainly recommend to mention such a detail another time :-)
I hereby close this as a non-bug. Feel free to continue posting to it (only when "archived" is it closed for further input), especially if you disagree with my judgement and would like the bugreport reopened.I don't disagree with you about the issue being a non-bug, so the bug report can remain closed.
Ok. Let's just continue discussing here - while closed.In other cases of users contacting me privately as you did, I write a little longer - starting with "If you believe this is a bug in some official package, then..." and ending with "...if not, then please ask your questions at either a debian-user* mailinglist or (if very package specific) at <package>@packages.debian.org which goes to both package maintainer(s) and others subscribed to following that package closely.
...this time around I skimmed your email briefly and was lazy, so judged (wrongly!) for you that this fell under the first category. :-/
If your interest here is not only to get that specific MoinMoin package backported succesfully, but more on understanding generally how CDBS works and have historically worked, then we'd better move our discussion to the CDBS mailinglist (which is also what you reach by simply sendign to [email protected] ).
Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
