Dear Francesco, Thank you for your message. Please find below confirmations about (almost) all your statements.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > Could someone please confirm the following? > (A) Since apt-listbugs is an application (and not a library) and a > Debian native package, I should only need to care about the naming > conventions of the (build-)*dependencies* (and *suggestions*) of > apt-listbugs and about running the test suite during package build True. > (B) Since apt-listbugs already has a (small) test suite and it already > runs it during package build, I should be OK with this requirement True. > (C) The remaining old-style-named (build-)dependencies for > apt-listbugs are: > 0) libdpkg-ruby1.8 > 1) libgettext-ruby1.8 > 2) libzlib-ruby1.8 > Of these three old-style-named packages, the first one > (libdpkg-ruby1.8) has already been renamed, and I updated the > (build-)dependencies accordingly in > http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=929da11f9476c36113847fc1081150f176a1876e > This change is pending: it will show up in the next apt-listbugs upload. Thanks. > The second package (libgettext-ruby1.8) has not yet been renamed, as > far as I can see. Let me check: yes, it seems that the source package > (libgettext-ruby) is in the list of packages not yet using the new Ruby > Policy... > I will update the (build-)dependencies, once the renamed package has > migrated into testing. In case I turn out to be too slow in noticing and > reacting, a bug report against apt-listbugs will be welcome! Thanks. We'll report a bug if needed after the transition of libgettext-ruby1.8. > The third package (libzlib-ruby1.8) is actually a virtual package > provided by libruby1.8: it seems to me that there's no ruby-zlib > virtual package (should there be one?). Taking into account that > apt-listbugs currently only works with ruby1.8 (and that > it has #!/usr/bin/ruby1.8 as its she-bang), I am under the impression > that nothing should be done (yet) for this dependency. You can keep it as is for the moment. I don't know what will happen with libzlib-ruby1.8 virtual package. Maybe other members of the team do. If something changes about it, we will notice you through the BTS. Best wishes, Cédric
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
