Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 08/07/09 at 22:57 +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: >> Hi Lucas, >> >> Thanks for your work. But the alternative to libboost1.37-dev: >> libboost-dev is available since May, so it should have been available >> during your rebuild in June too. I don't know, why the package failed to >> build, but it doesn't fail here. I'm going to close this report. If you >> still observe the problem, please reopen your report. > > Hi Daniel, > > (note that messages sent to the bug number aren't sent to the submitter. > You should Cc the submitter in such cases).
JFTR: It was sent to -done, which AFAIK automatically sends a note to the submitter. Did this change recently? > Alternatives in build-dependencies are not supported by sbuild, Use the -C switch. Further this behavior is violating the Debian Policy section 7.1. You might file a bug report with severity "normal", but not a serious bug. The alternative package is available and has to be used accordingly to the policy: "[..] the package names listed may also include lists of alternative package names, separated by vertical bar (pipe) symbols |. In such a case, if any one of the alternative packages is installed, that part of the dependency is considered to be satisfied. [..]" > and are > a bad idea in general (because your package might end up being built > against different packages on different arches). They might be a bad idea in some cases, but not in our case, where libboost-dev is the expected fallback, if libboost1.37-dev is not available. This is the result of more than 4 boost versions in Debian and libboost-dev will stay the alternative version. I don't see any other solution. Downgrading this bug to normal. Regards, Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
