patches to wesnoth, or rather general issue with substvar handling

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>         Hi!
> 
>  First of all, thanks for the fast response, clearly appreciated.
> Sometimes I wish some of my upstreams would be as responsive as this
> "downstream". ;)
> 
> * Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu at ubuntu.com> [2007-10-23 19:12:49 CEST]:
>> At one point in the past, libsdl-*1.2-dev packages didn't depend on the
>> libsdl1.2-dev package, causing a FTBFS. If you look at the changelog,
>> you will see:
>>
>>     - Added libsdl1.2-dev to Build-deps (fix FTBFS)
>>
>>  -- Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu at ubuntu.com>  Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:10:08 +0100
>>
>> That was in Feisty, and it's fixed now, so we can remove it.
> 
>  Though, hmm, such a FTBFS never happend in Debian, was that a libsdl
> problem in ubuntu only? This is just a curious question, not meant as a
> finger pointing or anything else.

I don't know if it was in other places, but at least in Ubuntu it was present...

> 
>> But why would you remove it? You shouldn't rely on dependencies of
>> your build-dependencies, since in the future they can change, causing
>> a FTBFS.
> 
>  In general you are right. In this case it in fact clearly is a bug that
> happened in the libsdl packaging at some point, so adding it explicitly
> is a workaround for that breakage. It still makes me wonder a bit... but
> given that it doesn't really hurt appart from some few bytes in the
> source package I guess I could live with having it explicitly there
> instead of implicitly.
> 
>> If you have a dependency on a package, shouldn't you put it,
>> regardless of the other build-dependencies?
> 
>  You are right, just checked, src/video.hpp does #include "SDL.h"
> directly. I always thought it's just used indirectly, that's what I
> originally thought.
> 
>>>  The other thing which is pretty nasty and can give you headaches in
>>> cases you would need to do binary-only rebuilds without source
>>> changes is a false usage of substvars: Any package, especially Arch:
>>> all packages ... that has a versioned dependency on an Arch: any
>>> package ... will have to use the ${binary:Version} instead of the
>>> ${source:Version} to not create troubles for such uploads.
>> We don't do binary-only rebuilds AFAIK, but that isn't a excuse not to fix it ;)
> 
>  Thanks. ;)
> 
>> I mailed (more than once) to Isaac Clerencia, who is the Debian Maintainer, and
>> he told me he was going to add it. Maybe he forgot about it...
> 
>  Ah. For such cases, and given that more and more packages are team
> maintained these days, or even just in the case of a handover of
> packages, I would encourage to use the Debian BTS to send patches along.
> That way it is visible for everyone interested in the package, even if
> they are not listed in the package responsible section (like,
> Uploaders), and not get stuck and hidden in someone's private mailbox.  :)

Sure, I'll do that in the future. Sorry for not having (always) done it in the past.

> 
>> Isaac Clerencia wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 5 May 2007, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> 
>  Ah, may - that was a bit before the time I sort-of "hijacked" the
> package from Isaac noticing he was more than busy with other stuff and
> helped out bringing the 1.2.5 into the pool finally. Especially the kind
> of situation that could had been avoided with sending the patches with
> explenations to the Debian BTS.  ;)
> 
>> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/9284696/wesnoth_1.2.6-1ubuntu%5B1%2C2%5D.debdiff
>> https://launchpad.net/bugs/113361
> 
>  This exact patch is one that is a broken approach to a not generated
> locale on the user's system. It enables that locale for wesnoth only,
> but if the user really wants to use that language they definitely should
> be guided to generate the system's locale for that language and not been
> worked around that by the --enable-dummy-locale switch.

For example in my case I use English in the system, but I sometimes want to run
wesnoth under another Spanish... should I really create a locale just for that?

> If that is used
> they most propably will file the exactly same bugreports against every
> other application that offers localization too.
> 
>  Another clean approach might be wesnoth check what system locales are
> available and just display those languages in the chooser that can be
> properly supported. I think I'll try to ask upstream about what they
> think about this approach.
> 
>> I'll remember to CC you next time I change wesnoth in Ubuntu!
> 
>  Please just send it to the BTS and not let it pile up in another's
> person personal mailbox. ;)

Sure, I'll do.

Take care,
Emilio

> 
>  So long,
> Rhonda
> 


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-motu/attachments/20071024/4d5273ff/attachment-0001.pgp