Debian Bug report logs - #5210
dpkg-gencontrol: Support substvars in names of binary packages

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mr Stuart Lamble <lamble@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dpkg-source complains on substitution variables

Date: Fri, 01 Nov 96 09:14:57 +1100

Package: dpkg
Version: 1.4.0.2

When I was building up libelf0, I tried using ${MAJOR} in debian/control:

Package: libelf${MAJOR}
...
Package: libelf${MAJOR}-dev

in an attempt to not have to edit the control file when libelf 1.0.0 comes
out. (yeah, I'm lazy. :) dpkg-source barfs on this, despite having setup
substvars properly, claiming that the package has two conflicting names,
libelf0 and libelf${MAJOR}.

I worked around it by changing the ${MAJOR}s to 0, but as I read the manual,
it should know how to use substvars to do the required job. 'Course, I could
be showing off my ignorance here. :)

Message #10 received at 5210@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stuart Lamble <lamble@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au>

To: Mr Stuart Lamble <lamble@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au>, 5210@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#5210: dpkg-source complains on substitution variables

Date: Sat, 02 Nov 96 12:46:28 +1100

Mr Stuart Lamble <lamble@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
>Package: dpkg
>Version: 1.4.0.2
>
>When I was building up libelf0, I tried using  in debian/control:
>
>Package: libelf
>...
>Package: libelf-dev
>
>in an attempt to not have to edit the control file when libelf 1.0.0 comes
>out. (yeah, I'm lazy. :) dpkg-source barfs on this, despite having setup
>substvars properly, claiming that the package has two conflicting names,
>libelf0 and libelf.
>
>I worked around it by changing the s to 0, but as I read the manual,
>it should know how to use substvars to do the required job. 'Course, I could
>be showing off my ignorance here. :)

Argh! The bug report seems to have dropped some of the text of the report -
there were several bits that had (separated into individual characters to
try to avoid this problem) "$", "{", "MAJOR", and "}" in them. ie: where
the above says "libelf", it should be "libelf...", and "libelf-dev" should
be "libelf...-dev" (... being replaced by the bug text.)

Feel free to contact me by private email if this is still confusing. (Maybe
this should be a bug report against the bug reporting system? :-)

Message #15 received at 5210-maintonly@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: remco@blaakmeer.student.utwente.nl (Remco Blaakmeer)

To: 5210-maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Old bugs need to be looked at

Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 12:01:22 +0100 (CET)

This is an automated message sent to all bugs older than one year.

This bug is very old. Please take a look at it and see if you can fix it.
If it has already been fixed, please close it.

If you have problems fixing it or if you don't have the time to fix it,
please ask the people on debian-devel@lists.debian.org for help, so that
at least the oldest bugs can be solved before Debian 2.0 is released.

Remco Blaakmeer

Message #50 received at 5210-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guillem Jover <guillem@hadrons.org>

To: 5210-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#5210: dpkg-source complains on substitution variables

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 23:41:24 +0200

Hi!

On Fri, 1996-11-01 at 09:14:57 +1100, Mr Stuart Lamble wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.4.0.2

> When I was building up libelf0, I tried using ${MAJOR} in debian/control:
> 
> Package: libelf${MAJOR}
> ...
> Package: libelf${MAJOR}-dev
> 
> in an attempt to not have to edit the control file when libelf 1.0.0 comes
> out. (yeah, I'm lazy. :) dpkg-source barfs on this, despite having setup
> substvars properly, claiming that the package has two conflicting names,
> libelf0 and libelf${MAJOR}.
> 
> I worked around it by changing the ${MAJOR}s to 0, but as I read the manual,
> it should know how to use substvars to do the required job. 'Course, I could
> be showing off my ignorance here. :)

This has been marked as wontfix for a long time, and that's not going
to change (at least in the foreseeable future). Some time ago I added an
entry covering this to the dpkg FAQ at
<https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q:_Why_are_substvars_not_effective_.28by_default.29_on_parts_of_debian.2Fcontrol.3F>,
so there's no point in keeping this wontfix bug open, thus closing it
now.

Thanks,
Guillem

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.