Hi, Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-07-28 18:38:38) > Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> (2014-07-28): > > Quoting Cyril Brulebois (2014-07-28 16:40:49) > > > > diff -Nru apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u2/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols > > > > apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u3/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols > > > > --- apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u2/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols 2013-03-01 > > > > 10:51:21.000000000 +0000 > > > > +++ apt-0.9.7.9+deb7u3/debian/libapt-pkg4.12.symbols 2014-07-28 > > > > 11:32:23.000000000 +0000 > > > > @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ > > > > (c++)"debListParser::VersionHash()@Base" 0.8.0 > > > > (c++)"debListParser::Architecture()@Base" 0.8.0 > > > > (c++)"debListParser::ParseDepends(char const*, char const*, > > > > std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > > > >&, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, > > > > std::allocator<char> >&, unsigned int&, bool const&, bool const&)@Base" > > > > 0.8.0 > > > > + (c++)"debListParser::ParseDepends(char const*, char const*, > > > > std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > > > > >&, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, > > > > std::allocator<char> >&, unsigned int&, bool const&, bool const&, bool > > > > const&)@Base" 0.9.7.9+deb7u2 > > > > > > This is wrong. > > > > Why? > > > > And how would it be done "right"? > > Pretty sure 0.9.7.9+deb7u2 doesn't ship the symbol you pretend it does…
you are right, I wrongly updated the version when I rebased the patch from the one prepared for backports to the current stable version of apt. But that is trivially fixed. Is there anything else wrong with that line? > (Ansgar told you where to look, by the way.) Which message of Ansgar are you referring to? > > > > diff -Nru python-apt-0.8.8.2/debian/control > > > > python-apt-0.8.8.2+deb7u1/debian/control > > > > --- python-apt-0.8.8.2/debian/control 2013-03-13 22:25:59.000000000 > > > > +0000 > > > > +++ python-apt-0.8.8.2+deb7u1/debian/control 2014-07-28 > > > > 11:46:59.000000000 +0000 > > > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ > > > > apt-utils, > > > > debhelper (>= 7.3.5), > > > > fakeroot, > > > > - libapt-pkg-dev (>= 0.8.11), > > > > + libapt-pkg-dev (= 0.9.7.9+deb7u3), > > > > > > I'm pretty sure this a bad idea. > > > > > > This happened not so long ago: > > > [12 Jun 2014] DSA-2958 apt - security update > > > > > > Next apt update would mean python-apt is no longer buildable in stable. > > > > This is correct. I am not aware of a correct way to express this dependency. > > Well, as usual, >= foo together with << bar? My problem with that solution is: << than what version? Also, apt starts shipping the proper symbol with version 0.9.16.1 and the only way to retrieve a version before 0.9.16.1 is from snapshot.debian.org. So is a << even necessary? If it is, then less than what version? > I read this as “no tests have been performed”. Not quite what I'd expect for > things as critical as a new apt in stable… We are quite confident that apt, python-apt and dpkg itself work as expected as those were thoroughly tested. As for their reverse dependencies: Of the reverse dependencies of libapt-pkg4.12 only qapt uses the ParseDepends function. But it doesnt do so for parsing source control data so there will be no behaviour change. Of the reverse dependencies of python-apt, ParseSrcDepends is used by none. The rest use ParseDepends which only acts on binary packages and thus does not have a change in functionality. Of the reverse dependencies of libdpkg-perl only libsbuild-perl and xapt make use of the changed deps_parse function. Because they do not pass the reduce_profiles argument they will not be able to parse the new syntax. We did test sbuild but we did not test xapt. What other tests would you like me to run? cheers, josch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140728181959.4150.26090@hoothoot
