Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:17:02 +0100 Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > *shrug*. Knowing the Debian Policy would help compensate that bias. I think you've missed my point - the change is done anyway, it's just done as part of an upstream

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > You're talking about the shlib, as explained in my other message, I > was inadvertently folding the two into one. My mistake. Finally. > > You *do* understand the concept of SONAME and shlibs, right? > > Yes, but adding symbols "properly" include

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:12:56 + (UTC) Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Can someone confirm / deny my understanding here? As I say, I'm > >> very new to all this. > > > > Sorry to inflict my mistake upon you. It happens to everyone at some > > point. > > Whoops. It appears the mistak

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > My .deb however doesn't depend on a specific version of libflac, is > that because there are no versions prior to this available? It is because currently, libflac doesn't declare its shlibs properly. Once this is fixed, and once your package has bee

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Can someone confirm / deny my understanding here? As I say, I'm very >> new to all this. > > Sorry to inflict my mistake upon you. It happens to everyone at some > point. Whoops. It appears the mistake is mi

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:34:15 + (UTC) Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now I'm confused. That's my fault. There is a bug in the shlibs of libflac++ > Is there a bug in the libflac++ stuff or not? The > way I see it: Yes - just in the shlibs which is much easier to fix. > 1. If my

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andy Hawkins<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say! Kind of > new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time last week I knew > nothing about it!). Now I'm confused. Is there a bug in

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:14:05 +0100 Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The bug only arises if symbols are removed or function prototypes > > are changed in existing symbols. > > Wrong. You're talking about the shlib, as explained in my other message, I was inadvertently folding the two

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure, if the package that is building needs those symbols. But what about > other packages that *don't* necessarily need those symbols, but get built > against the newer version of the library anyway? Those symbols can

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 04:06:46PM +, Neil Williams wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:18:01 +0900 > "Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images int

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:06:16 +0900 "Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does > > NOT require a SONAME bump. > > We are not talking about SONAME bu

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (10/12/2008): > > Specify the strict version ahead of shlib:Depends and dpkg-shlibdeps > > does the right thing. > > Thats a hack. Another workaround for broken shlibs is > debian/shlibs.local. A very dirty one. The other being the one recommended by the Policy, but

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > Adding a new function (or several hundred new functions) has > absolutely ZERO impact on the SONAME as long as the new functions do > not overlap existing functions, change existing functions or require > any changes elsewhere in the library that re

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cyril, we need to sort this out for that RC bug that doesn't exist but > which you raised the severity - adding a new symbol is NOT a bug, as > long as it is done properly (as above). > > It is up to the package using the l

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Sune Vuorela
On 2008-12-09, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I doubt that - merely adding a new symbol is NOT a bug, let alone >> release-critical. > > Right, but not bumping shlibs at the same time is an RC bug AFAIK. I agree. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "u

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:06:46 + Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The bug only arises if symbols are removed or function prototypes are > changed in existing symbols. > > > http://qa.debian.org/cgi-bin/mole/seedsymbols/.raw/seedsymbols/libflac++6_i386 > > Then a new line gets added fo

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > Looks like you just found an RC bug in libflac++6 - includes new > > symbols in version 1.2.1-1 according to mole but the shlibs does not > > depend on that version: > > That is not a bug - the package building against it merely has to > require

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > Short version: “Fix your shlibs.” > > Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does > NOT require a SONAME bump. Neil, read. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:18:01 +0900 "Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into > > the FLAC file. This was introduced in 1.2. > > Looks like you just fou

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cyril, we've had this discussion before - merely adding symbols does > NOT require a SONAME bump. We are not talking about SONAME bumps, but shlib bumps. > Take a look at glib2.0, libgtk+2.0 and libqof1 - symbols are add

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:51:50 +0100 Cyril Brulebois <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > > Please file a bug about this. > > > > Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say! > > Kind of new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > Please file a bug about this. > > Umm, I'll try. I'm not sure exactly what that bug report should say! > Kind of new to all this Debian packaging stuff (as of this time last > week I knew nothing about it!). Short version: “Fix your shlibs.” Sli

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Wise<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into the FLAC >> file. This was introduced in 1.2. > > Looks like you just

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Cyril Brulebois
Eugene V. Lyubimkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (09/12/2008): > > package-has-a-duplicate-relation depends: libflac++6, libflac++6 (>= 1.2.1) > > According to the man dpkg-gencontrol, just place 'libflac++6(>=1.2.1)' > before the '${shlibs:Depends}', and dpkg-control with throw away less > strong dependenc

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Paul Wise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please file a bug about this. I forgot to ask you to ask the release team for binNMUs for the packages using those symbols once the shlibs is fixed. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > New symbols. It specifically has support for embedding images into the FLAC > file. This was introduced in 1.2. Looks like you just found an RC bug in libflac++6 - includes new symbols in version 1.2.1-1 according to mole b

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Eugene V. Lyubimkin
Andy Hawkins wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the dependencies > generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, but I need to force > the version of one particular component. > > So I've put > > Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, l

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > dpkg-shlibdeps appears to disagree - either the symbols in FLAC are > wrong or your suspicion could be wrong. Are you talking about new > symbols in the FLAC library or bug fixes in existing functions? New sy

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Neil Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This "component" is a shared library and therefore a build dependency. > If you are going to force a particular version, you should do it in > Build-Depends. > dpkg-shlibdeps will then work out the rest using

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:58:29 + (UTC) Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I need to force the version of one particular component. > > > > Why is that? > > Because that version of FLAC includes extra functionality that is > detected at compile time. Then it is a build-dependency issu

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi, In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Wise<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I need to force the version of one particular component. > > Why is that? Because that version of FLAC includes extra functionality tha

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Neil Williams
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:02:25 + (UTC) Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the > dependencies generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, > but I need to force the version of one particular component. This "component" is

Re: Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Paul Wise
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Andy Hawkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I need to force the version of one particular component. Why is that? -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL

Listing dependencies with specific versions

2008-12-09 Thread Andy Hawkins
Hi all, I'm in the process of building my first package. Most of the dependencies generated by ${shlibs:Depends} are fine for the package, but I need to force the version of one particular component. So I've put Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, libflac++6(>=1.2.1) in the 'control' f