"Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"
However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug
So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
"Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"
However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug
So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?
It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
"Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"
However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug
So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?
It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:15:14AM +0000, Paul Wise wrote:
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 9:56 AM Bill Allombert wrote:
"Package has a Suggests on pari-gp-dbgsym which cannot be satisfied on amd64"
However pari-gp-dbgsym exists in buster-debug
So is it a debcheck bug or something that can be fixed in the package ?
It is a bug in debcheck, it does not yet know about the debian-debug archive.
Well, I'd argue that the message is correct.
The Policy allows Suggests against non-existing packages, so the
situation is alright, but you are in fact suggestion a package that is outside of the "main" debian archive.
Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still
consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package
from the debug archive something weird.
Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still
consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package
from the debug archive something weird.
So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg
and be in main).
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package from the debug archive something weird.
So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg
and be in main).
Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
its activity?
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:11:28PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:04:24PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
Even if debcheck learnt about the debian-debug archive, I'd still consider a package from the main archive having Suggests to a package from the debug archive something weird.
So are you suggesting I move pari-gp-dbgsym back to main ? Would the
FTP masters allow that ? (pari-gp-dbgsym used to be named pari-gp-dbg and be in main).
Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
its activity?
This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its
own.
pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information,
pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.
Actually, I'd suggest you just drop that Suggest. What usefulness is it bringing anyway to your average user, suggesting them to intsall debug symbols? Is it something so common for this package to have to debug
its activity?
This package suggest to install _another_ package debug symbol, not its own.
pari-gp2c includes a script gp2c-dbg that allows to debug GP programs with gdb. For gdb to be able to display usable information,
pari-gp-dbgsym is needed.
Then, I'd argue that that's one valid case for the package to stay in
the main archive instead. I.e. use a manually build -dbg package.
But this is just my own opinion, I don't think there is anything
resembling a rule on matters regarding debug packages.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 83:57:03 |
Calls: | 6,495 |
Calls today: | 6 |
Files: | 12,097 |
Messages: | 5,276,894 |