Bug#764098: gst-plugins-bad0.10: build-depends on libgnutls-dev

[Andreas Metzler]

On 2014-10-05 David Prévot <taffit at debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:

>> Given that this
>> transition is basically finished (except for openldap and about 10
>> packages which build-depend on libgnutls-dev without generating
>> binaries that depend on libgnutls26)

> The following command shows 42 potentially affected packages (that’s
> still less than the 134 with s/libgnutls-dev/libgnutls28-dev/, but
> doesn’t sound negligible either):   

> grep-dctrl -s Package -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep,Depends,Recommends,Suggests libgnutls-dev /var/lib/apt/lists/*_sid_*Sources /var/lib/apt/lists/*_sid_*Packages | sort | uniq

Hello,
That grep-dctrl has got a significant number of false positives due to
two reasons:
#1 "Build-Depends: libgnutls28-dev|libgnutls-dev" matches.
#2 hurd and other non-release archs have some outdated binaries which
  causes the archive software to keep the source around, too. (e.g.
  efl shows up, but is fixed in sid and testing.).

Ignoring experimental and sid-only packages (these are the ones that
were removed from testing because of rc-bugs) leaves us with 12 bugs,
and about half of these are due to a unused b-d.

> (FWIW, I’ve finished rebuilding gst-plugins-bad0.10 with a b-d on
> libgnutls28-dev, but since it seems to take the problem from the wrong
> side, I’d prefer to wait for a confirmation before an upload; I’m also
> retrying to build 0.10.23-7.2…).

Please upload.

On 2014-10-05 David Prévot <taffit at debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2014 at 04:11:44PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> Indeed, the benefit seems rather small compared to making all further
> gnutls transition more painful by forcing all of its reverse b-d to
> provide a sourceful upload instead of triggering a simple binNMU when
> possible.

I think there is small misunderstanding: The fact that we now have
libgnutls28-dev does not mean that we will have matching versioned
development packages (libgnutls{30,31,31,etc}-dev) for the library
package (libgnutls{30,31,31,etc}) in later versions. There is no
 reason why future gnutls transition should be hurt by the current naming of
the gnutl development package.

And just as an additional data point, only a very small number
packages is still refering to "libgnutls-dev":
ametzler at argenau:/tmp$ echo -n "possibly still using libgnutls-dev " ; grep-dctrl  -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep -s Package libgnutls-dev /chroots/sid/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources | sort -u | wc ; echo -n "switched to libgnutls28-dev        " ; grep-dctrl  -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep -s Package libgnutls28-dev /chroots/sid/var/lib/apt/lists/ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources | sort -u | wc
possibly still using libgnutls-dev      37      74     744
switched to libgnutls28-dev            107     214    1898

I hope this explains things a little bit better.

cu Andreas
-- 
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'