Re: depends-on-obsolete-package lsb-base
On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 18:23:16 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:19:15AM -0800, Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
> > Lintian just started erroring on 'depends-on-obsolete-package
> > lsb-base' on many of my packages yesterday.
>
> It's a very low priority cleanup; the Depends is redundant but
> harmless.
I don't think it is redundant though? Just removing the lsb-base
Depends can break packages on partial upgrades in the same way lsb-base
broke stuff before it grew a versioned dependency on sysvinit-utils.
While lsb-base is Priority required in bullseye, it is optional in
bookworm (although I think at least for apt these might be sticky?),
but regardless, if there are no remaining dependencies on it, these
could end up being removed by eager users.
> > There are no new uploads of lsb-base recently
>
> Relevant changes are from September. The lsb-base package is empty,
> and would have been gone completely if debootstrap understood Provides.
That would have also broken partial upgrades iff packages then removed
the dependency.
> > and I did not find any news about this topic. The
> > Lintian page https://lintian.debian.org/tags/depends-on-obsolete-package
> > is only about the error in general, not any mention of lsb-base
> > specific changes.
>
> The description of "$PACKAGE1 => $PACKAGE2" are clear enough, of
> "$PACKAGE => nothing" a bit less, indeed. You can just drop the dependency.
>
> > Does somebody know what is going on?
> >
> > Example:
> > E: mariadb-server: depends-on-obsolete-package Depends: lsb-base (>= 3.0-10)
>
> The severity of this warning is grossly overstated. It shouldn't be an
> "error" but a "mild warning to fix if you're bored".
I think the lintian tag should either tell to replace lsb-base with
«sysvinit-utils (>= 3.05-4~)» or it should say nothing and packages
should simply live with that dependency until the next release, then
it can be dropped. The advantage of the second option is that it
implies less packaging churn.
Regards,
Guillem
Reply to: