[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#606265: Bug#557495: Force sub-directories for both

[Andreas Tille]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:12:23PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> > The fact that there is now a
> > workaround seems to decrease the presure onto this clean solution.
> 
> I'm not at all sure why the solution has to be in one or other library
> as if code including the header (none of which is in Debian currently)
> cannot be trivially modified with an #ifdef or two.

Both libraries are interfacing with a Card Terminal (CT) and we have a
package in Debian which intends to provide this API (ctapi-dev).  This
package was created to fix the bug in question you simply worked around
now.  We just have another package libopenct1-dev which provides another
ctapi.h file and which probably has the same purpose to provide a CT
interface.  The package *I* have dealt with (libctapimkt0-dev) has such
a low priority that I would rather remove it from Debian than allowing
to add even more confusion and I agreed with upstream to find a better
solution than providing its own interface.  Upstream agreed, to this in
principle but there were other issues which were not (yet) solved and
thus I removed the pending tag because it is not clear how long it might
take.

Consequently libctapimkt0-dev was removed from testing (since a long
time) and this is correct for this package.  An apropriate thing to do
would have been to reassign bug #557495 only against libctapimkt0-dev
which would enable libtowitoko-dev to stay in testing (because there
is no chance to install both packages together in testing any more).
 
> It was just a hint, no detail, no proof or way for others to test.
> 
> This bug isn't enough to prevent either package being in Squeeze -

The package libctapimkt0-dev is *not* in Squeeze!

> if
> there are other issues, please file appropriate bugs and give people a
> chance to verify and possibly fix.
> 
> If you believe this to be the case, please file the appropriate RM bug
> with the reasoning.

I have not expected that people will spend their time on fixing bugs in
packages which are not in Squeeze.  You could have saved your time if
you would have pinged me about your intend.  You have spended time to
clean up a package with very low popcon which is not intended for
Squeeze.  This is brave and I welcome your work but at least for me
there are currently more burning issues to do.  If you want me to
discuss the issue further instead of trusting me that I'm in contact
with upstream and will handle things with upstream *after* the Squeeze
release I prefer removing the package for now and adding it later again.
This would keep ftpmaster busy for two times which I also feel
unapropriate.
 
Kind regards and thanks for your work in any case

       Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de