Bug#946149: please update build-deps on iptables

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 12/4/19 1:53 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi Arturo
> 
> Am 04.12.19 um 12:41 schrieb Arturo Borrero Gonzalez:
>> Package: systemd
>> Version: 243-8
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Hi there!
>>
>> The src:iptables debian package (v1.8.4-1) dropped the libiptc-dev and libiptc0
>> binary packages. The content is included now in either libip4tc or libip6tc.
>> Such change comes from upstream. 
>>
>> This package seems to `#include <libiptc/libiptc.h>`, which is fine; But
>> I encourage to please update the build-deps to use libip4tc-dev instead of
>> libiptc-dev.
> 
> So, I had a quick look at iptables 1.8.4.
> 
> upstream still installs a libiptc.pc and
> 
> ./usr/include/libiptc
> ./usr/include/libiptc/xtcshared.h
> ./usr/include/libiptc/libxtc.h
> ./usr/include/libiptc/libip6tc.h
> ./usr/include/libiptc/libiptc.h
> ./usr/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h
> 
> They did drop the libiptc.so though.
> My recommendation is to simply drop libiptc0 but keep libiptc-dev.
> 
> No changes to packages are necessary this way.
> If you drop the libiptc.pc, then this will cause quite a few packages to
> FTBFS.
> 

Thanks for the quick review, really appreciated.

For the record libiptc.pc is currently included in the other package:

debian/libip4tc-dev.install: usr/lib/*/pkgconfig/libiptc.pc

Thinking about your recommendation, it feels a bit weird to have libiptc-dev but
not the corresponding .so lib package. I wonder if that would make things more
confusing in the long term.
My approach was to have libiptc-dev be a transitional package, and Depend on the
other 2 variants so nobody should be FTBFS'ing. I won't drop the transitional
package until every package updates the Build-Dep to use libip4tc-dev.

What do you think about that?