[Build-common-hackers] Bug#537240: Bug#537240: Bug#537240: cdbs: should create versioned debhelper dependency

Russ Allbery rra at debian.org
Mon Aug 3 18:52:04 UTC 2009

Marc Haber <mh+debian-bugs at zugschlus.de> writes:

> packages built with cdbs currently trigger a lintian
> package-lacks-versioned-build-depends-on-debhelper, but the cdbs
> maintainer thinks that cdbs' behavior is correct.
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:22:08PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:53:24PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 01:13:48PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> >> >cdbs creates an unversioned debhelper dependency, which triggers a
>> >> >lintian warning on the generated package.
>> >>
>> >> Could you please quote that lintian warning?
>> >
>> I disagree with the described "recommended practice".  That could apply 
>> to *any* package, not just debhelper.  Backports older than oldstable 
>> will always be risky business!

The debhelper man page says:

       Once your package uses debhelper to build, be sure to add debhelper
       to your Build-Depends line in debian/control. You should
       build-depend on a version of debhelper equal to (or greater than)
       the debhelper compatibility level your package uses. So if your
       package used compatibility level 7:

         Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 7)

This was an intentional change in Lintian to bring it in line with the
practice explicitly recommended in the debhelper man page.  If the
debhelper maintainer thinks we're being too picky, I'm happy to change it
back, but since this is a question of best practices around the use of
debhelper, I think the debhelper maintainer rightfully has final say (at
least if they want it).

Personally, given the documentation benefits of having the dependencies
match the compat level and the ease of fixing this even if not considered
a problem per se, I'm mystified by the reaction of the cdbs maintainer.

Russ Allbery (rra at debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

More information about the Build-common-hackers mailing list