On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 10:19:14AM +0100, Thorsten Glaser wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Jay Berkenbilt wrote: > > * If your package build-depends on libtiff5-dev, you don't HAVE to do > > anything, but you may be helping yourself in the future if you change > > the build dependency to libtiff-dev (>> 4.0.3-6~).
This won't work as libtiff-dev is virtual. > Uhm, I have a rather general question here. > > libtiff-dev is a virtual package (it’s only provided by others). > Asides from the issue of virtual packages and versioning, I’ve > had ftpmasters REJECT a package of mine in NEW when it had a > Build-Depends on a virtual package (libncurses-dev, which I > had to change to “libncurses5-dev | libncurses-dev” first, > and “libtinfo-dev | libncurses-dev” now that libtinfo is in > the archive). > > I thought we’re supposed to not build-depend on virtual > packages, especially not as first alternative? This rule makes sense when there are multiple providers of a virtual package: in that case a real alternative is necessary to get deterministic results. However, libtiff-dev should only ever have one provider. In this case I don't think there should be a problem; it's effectively a lightweight alternative to Package: libtiff-dev Depends: libtiff5-dev. I strongly feel that it would be detrimental to have everyone go around writing "libtiff5-dev | libtiff-dev" everywhere. Much better to have the default be in as few places as possible, so that the transition can be done with binNMUs. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131206105641.ga5...@riva.ucam.org
