#787597 lintian: Proposed changes to the Build-Profiles tags

Package:
lintian
Source:
lintian
Submitter:
Niels Thykier
Date:
2019-12-15 16:27:05 UTC
Severity:
normal
#787597#5
Date:
2015-06-03 08:18:22 UTC
From:
To:
Prosed changes to

 * restriction-formula-without-versioned-dpkg-dev-dependency
 * restriction-formula-with-debhelper-without-debhelper-version

based on a chat with helmut over IRC:

"""
08:11 < helmut> nthykier: i think the tags are overbroad.
08:12 < helmut> nthykier: why should the usage of Build-Profiles require versioned dpkg-dev? older dpkg-dev just ignores the header
08:12 < helmut> nthykier: next, why should build profiles in Build-Depends require a recent dpkg-dev? either it is recent, then things are ok, or it isn't then it fails to parse Build-Depends.
08:13 < helmut> nthykier: in neither case do we gain anything by adding that dependency
08:13 < helmut> nthykier: the former also applies to debhelper. the latter less so.
08:16 < helmut> nthykier: let me backpedal a slight bit: if a binary package section has Build-Profiles with positive profiles (i.e. not enabled by default), then one does need both versioned deps.

[...]

08:45 < helmut> nthykier: 1) do not add versioned dpkg-dev solely for using build profiles in Build-Depends (as dpkg would fail to parse anyway)
08:45 < helmut> nthykier: 2) do not add versioned deps for using only negative profiles in Build-Profiles headers
"""
#787597#8
Date:
2015-06-03 08:46:23 UTC
From:
To:
* Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net>, 2015-06-03, 10:18:

Such versioned B-D on dpkg-dev is not useful for dpkg-dev itself; but it
might be useful for humans who are trying to figure out why the package
cannot be built.