Bug#946149: please update build-deps on iptables

[Michael Biebl]

Am 04.12.19 um 13:59 schrieb 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.

libiptc.pc has

  Requires:      libip4tc libip6tc

Which means, libiptc4-dev would have to depend on libptc6-dev.
At which point, it wouldn't make sense anymore to split off libip4tc-dev
and libip6tc-dev.

Moving libiptc.pc into libip4tc-dev feels wrong to me.

> 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?

I would prefer if libiptc-dev stayed around as non-transitional package.
It continues to ship libiptc.pc, and depends on libip4tc-dev libip6tc-dev.

Not sure about the headers.

/usr/include/libiptc/ipt_kernel_headers.h
/usr/include/libiptc/libiptc.h
/usr/include/libiptc/libxtc.h
/usr/include/libiptc/xtcshared.h

Those probably belong into libip4tc-dev. I have no strong opinion here.
Btw, if you move those headers, don't forget to add a Breaks/Replaces:
libiptc-dev to libip4tc-dev. This seems to be missing currently.

Regards,
Michael


-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?