Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
- Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 14:33:36 +0100
- From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Bug#886968: btrfs-progs-udeb: depends on non-udeb: libzstd1
On 18 April 2018 at 08:18, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 18/04/18 01:30, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> That's another perfect example why udeb additions should get reviewed:
>> we would have noticed another buggy package, and its bugginess might not
>> have been copied over to another package.
> I'm sure people don't request those reviews because they don't know or because
> they forget. A lintian warning could help, or ftp-masters enforcing an ack.
> Though I'd prefer the former as I wouldn't like NEW to have another bottleneck.
>> If someone wants to drive an effort to make -V a must for udebs in
>> policy, that's probably fine. It doesn't strike me as ultimately needed
>> (we've lived without it for quite some time because maintainers tend to
>> just do the right thing), but if people have spare time, go for it.
> It's not in policy (but I don't think it has to be), but following the
> conversation on #-ftp yesterday I opened:
> #895949 lintian: warn about packages with udebs but no udeb line in shlibs
> #895953 lintian: check that shlibs-version >= higher-version-symbols-file
> The latter wouldn't enforce -V, but would check that we at least get a high
> enough version in shlibs as compared to the .symbols file (and would have solved
> the zstd problem).
I like these bugs, and the patch to the latter one.