[Pkg-giraffe-discuss] workaround to get zarafa-7.2.0 build?

[Guido Günther]

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> I agree, the intention behind all this changes was simply to keep
> Lintian so quite as possible to jump then over to the small other
> issues. In the end I would like of course debian/rules get to debhelper
> "style" (you already started that). But instead to make a big change now
> I would trying to get the packages in first in a more use usable state.
> If we have all the installation of these packages in a good shape then I
> would start to move over into a clean debhelper 9 state.
> 
> By this we would see if the functionality after that change is the same
> as before. Right now it's a little bit difficult working together if the
> structure inside debian/ is frequently significant changing as the
> impact is mostly a greater thing. Without such changes now we could work
> on specific issues like the start/stop behavior with the systemd service
> files or the adoption for Apache 2.4 for example.

That's why I'm proposing to switch to th 8 NOW. I checked that the
generated packages are identical prior and after my switch to dh
8. There only changes in the python packages where files were in the
wrong package before that change.

> > * I wonder wether the Conflict: or the Breaks: zarafa (<< 7.2) is
> >   correct (or necessary at all). What was the reason for changing this?
> 
> Of course based on a Lintian warning. From the first view I was thinking
> this warning doesn't matter in our case, there are no older versions
> within the Debian repos. But there could be users who have installed
> packages directly from the Zarafa repository and we can get then some
> clashes.

But still: Breaks or Conflicts? Very likely breaks is sufficient (see
section 7.3 and 7.4 of policy).

> 
> > I also started to switch to dh 9 (so we get hardening flags, etc. for
> > free too) but continuing on this wone doesn't make sense until the rest
> > is merged.
> 
> I don't hang on my old commits, if it would be easier and time saving
> for you I would suggest to simply revert my commits.
> So how to move on? By writing this email I haven't had a look into
> your WIP.

Please do have a look. There's no need to revert, it's a pretty simple
git merge, but i don't want to push untested code to the repo.
Cheers,
 -- Guido