[Pkg-privacy-maintainers] Bug#838281: Bug#838281: fixed in parcimonie 0.10.2-3

[Santiago Vila]

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 03:18:34AM -0700, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:

> I welcome concrete suggestions about how to fiddle with dependencies or
> build-dependencies to make it clear that the blockage is one more layer
> deep, but i'm not sure what the right choice would be.

Actually, this was already written by you in the announcement email:

  [...] at some point it'd be nice to get rid of /usr/bin/gpg2 and just have
  one expected binary (gpg).  So you can help with that:

  * Look for places where your package expects gpg2 and make it try
   gpg instead.  If you can make your code fall back cleanly
    
  * Change your dependencies to indicate gnupg (>= 2)

The more people do this, the better for people like me who build
packages in testing :-) When the result of building a package is
"build-dependencies may not be met", I think "Ok, this must be a
build-dependency which has not propagated to testing yet". OTOH, when
I get a FTBFS, I think "Grr, I have to investigate this one".

Some day we will have britney to check both build-dependencies and
dependencies for the unstable-to-testing migration, but until then,
the above is the second best thing, in my opinion.

Thanks.