Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > Hi! > > [going as Bcc to the MOTUs which are listed in the changelog of wesnoth > explicitly] > > I just recently gone through the MOTU patches of wesnoth again, and > noticed one thing that looks pretty strange to me and one thing that is > just wrong and should get checked for other packages, too. > > The first thing is a redundant added dependency on libsdl1.2-dev. There > are already Build-Depends on libsdl-net1.2-dev, libsdl-mixer1.2-dev and > libsdl-image1.2-dev which all three of them depend on libsdl1.2-dev > itself so it really makes me wonder why that is needed or why it was > added. I don't expect the Ubuntu libsdl packaging being totally > different to the Debian one, so why this is needed is somehow out of my > reach.
At one point in the past, libsdl-*1.2-dev packages didn't depend on the libsdl1.2-dev package, causing a FTBFS. If you look at the changelog, you will see: - Added libsdl1.2-dev to Build-deps (fix FTBFS) -- Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:10:08 +0100 That was in Feisty, and it's fixed now, so we can remove it. But why would you remove it? You shouldn't rely on dependencies of your build-dependencies, since in the future they can change, causing a FTBFS. If you have a dependency on a package, shouldn't you put it, regardless of the other build-dependencies? > > The other thing which is pretty nasty and can give you headaches in > cases you would need to do binary-only rebuilds without source changes > is a false usage of substvars: Any package, especially Arch: all > packages (in this case, wesnoth-all) that has a versioned dependency > on an Arch: any package (in this case, wesnoth, wesnoth-editor, > wesnoth-server) will have to use the ${binary:Version} instead of the > ${source:Version} to not create troubles for such uploads. We don't do binary-only rebuilds AFAIK, but that isn't a excuse not to fix it ;) > > This thing propably won't need to get fixed for wesnoth because I plan > to introduce the wesnoth-all package in Debian too, suggested by > upstream (never heard anything about it from any MOTU that this patch is > hanging in there, though, which I would have expected out of courtsey > and getting changes pushed back upstream), but I thought I'd make you > aware of the issue in case this wrong approach is used in other MOTU > patches, too. I mailed (more than once) to Isaac Clerencia, who is the Debian Maintainer, and he told me he was going to add it. Maybe he forgot about it... Isaac Clerencia wrote: > On Saturday, 5 May 2007, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: >> Hi Isaac >> >> I'm maintaining wesnoth in Ubuntu, and I created a meta-package, >> wesnoth-all, which depends in the campaigns, the sound... (everything >> but the server). This is for an easier install, since now the >> gnome-app-install installs wesnoth-all, so it gives the user a fully game. >> >> I was wondering whether you can introduce this change in the debian >> package, so we have the less differences as possible. >> >> Please, let me know what do you think. > I don't have any problem doing that, I'll do it in the next release. Also, I sent him this patch. Feel free to apply it too! http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9284696/wesnoth_1.2.6-1ubuntu%5B1%2C2%5D.debdiff https://launchpad.net/bugs/113361 I'll remember to CC you next time I change wesnoth in Ubuntu! Best, Emilio > > So long, and thanks for keeping in touch. :) > Rhonda >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu