On Mon, 22 Sep 2003, Craig Small wrote: > Hello dpkg maintainer people, > > you might want to wander over to > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=211292 > for some context. > > On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 06:31:27AM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > > which will unfold to either of > > > > Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), > > Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), debconf(>= 0.5) > > > > which both work. In the first of these to latter cases, the > > remove-empty-subfields feature of dpkg-deb is used. > > It was the first case I was worried about, if that made it broken too. > So you have gone from breaking things if both things defined to breaking > things if only one is defined. > > You also missed a case, how about: > Depends: , debconf(>= 0.5) > > In this case, misc:Depends is defined but shlibs:Depends is not > > So, to ask the dpkg people, will dpkg be happy with any of the three: > > Contestant A) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), > Contestant B) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1), debconf(>= 0.5) > Contestant C) Depends: , debconf(>= 0.5)
These should all work. If they don't, file bugs about it. A short test-case will be a short debian/control, with no vars, and the commas/items missing/existing as needed, and a dpkg-gencontrol run on that package paragraph. > The current setup does this, which apparently is now not allowed: > Contestant D) Depends: libc (>= 2.3.1-1) debconf(>= 0.5) Of course this isn't allowed. It's an invalid line. > If not, which ones work? I know contestant B is the right one, but are > any of the others permitted or not?
