Hi David, On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 09:06:59AM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > I haven't really undestood the implications of this yet. Are you > proposing this change for bullseye, or can it wait until after the > freeze?
This is not obvious. Let me give more details, so you can get a better picture. debhelper knows about addons. Traditionally, you could enable them via "--with foo". That turned out to be difficult when you want an addon for for an architecture-independent package (e.g. sphinx) and can skip it for arch-only builds. Therefore a separate way to enable addons was added. When you add dh-sequence-foo to Build-Depends, it'll be enabled. Given that presently nothing provides dh-sequence-elpa, nothing can practically use it. Adding the provides changes nothing right now. That is until someone else starts depending on it. Therefore, I think the risk of regressing anything is quite low. This change is a bit of an edge case wrt freeze. Having it in bullseye would be good for one reason: Once someone backports packages that do depend on dh-sequence-elpa, one also has to use a backported dh-elpa unless you add the provides now. So in the interest of simplifying backports to bullseye, I'd say you should include it now. Does that make sense to you? I'm Ccing Niels, so he can correct the things that are wrong if any. Helmut
