review Debian dependencies
Submitted by Jim Nelson
Assigned to Jim Nelson
Link to original bug (#717124)
Description
---- Reported by jim@yorba.org 2011-02-09 14:40:00 -0800 ----
Original Redmine bug id: 3166
Original URL: http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/3166
Searchable id: yorba-bug-3166
Original author: Jim Nelson
Original description:
I compared the Shotwell dependencies in Ubuntu's debian/control with our own. We should review and possibly clean up the following:
- As Jim mentioned previous, with #3147 (closed) committed we should include totem as a runtime dependency.
- Our valac dependency is out of date.
- Our build depends on m4, which is not listed as a build dependency.
- It would be nice to alphabetize the dependencies in the control file.
- Do we really depend on the sqlite3 package at run time? I would think libsqlite3-0 would be adequate. Ubuntu depends only on libsqlite3-0.
- Ubuntu lists almost no runtime dependencies in its debian/control file and simply lets !shlibs:Depends work its magic. Can we do the same?
- As mentioned in comments, can we use gnome-fvs 2.24.2 instead of 2.24.3?
---- Additional Comments From shotwell-maint@gnome.bugs 2013-05-01 11:39:00 -0700 ----
History
Comment 1
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
- Subject changed from Add totem to Debian runtime dependencies to review Debian dependencies
Comment 2
Updated by Adam Dingle almost 3 years ago
Whoever takes this on should take care of#3108at the same time.
Comment 3
Updated by Adam Dingle over 2 years ago
- Status changed from Open to Review
- Assignee changed from Anonymous to Eric Gregory
Comment 4
Updated by Martin Wimpress over 2 years ago
Hi,
You may have seen my posts in the mailing list recently about my efforts to back port Shotwell 0.8.1 and 0.8.90 to Ubuntu Lucid.
Back porting 0.8.1 was quite simple, but 0.8.90 required me to also back port gnome-vfs-2.0 2.24.3 and glib-2.0 2.26.0
With regard to gnome-vfs-2.0, Lucid has 2.24.2. I'd just like to ask if Shotwell is really dependant on 2.24.3 or is 2.43.2 sufficient? If so, can you lower the gnome-vfs-2.0 requirement to 2.24.2?
With regards to glib-2.0, Lucid has 2.24.1. Again, I'd like to ask if Shotwell is really dependant on 2.26.0 because when I back ported vala 0.11.7 it only required 2.16.0. Can you confirm the actual glib-2.0 requirement and if possible drop it to something Lucid supports?
I appreciate that maintaining Lucid support is not a priority for you, but if these requirements can be investigated and lowered it will mean Lucid users can enjoy Shotwell 0.9 without the worry of upgrading core libraries :-)
Comment 5
Updated by Jim Nelson over 2 years ago
The glib requirement is necessary because we're now using GDateTime in our code (which is a big advancement over time_t and will help us eliminate this bug and its cousins: #3040 (closed)). GDateTime was introduced in 2.26.
The gnome-vfs requirement may not be so cut-and-dried. We'll take a look at it when we package 0.9.0.
Comment 6
Updated by Martin Wimpress over 2 years ago
Thanks for the clarification on glib 2.26. Let me know what you decide about gnome-vfs via this ticket.
Either way, I've back ported the required libraries so I am ready to provide a Shotwell 0.9 package for Lucid when the day comes.
Comment 7
Updated by Adam Dingle over 2 years ago
- Assignee changed from Eric Gregory to Jim Nelson
Comment 8
Updated by Jim Nelson over 2 years ago
- Status changed from Review to 5
- Resolution set to fixed
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
I rolled back the gnome-vfs requirements to 2.24.2 and updated the other requirements as per the above ticket. Since changing the runtime dependencies is iffier, I've left them as-is.
r2787
Comment 9
Updated by Charles Lindsay 7 months ago
- Status changed from 5 to Fixed
--- Bug imported by chaz@yorba.org 2013-11-25 21:49 UTC ---
This bug was previously known as bug 3166 at http://redmine.yorba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3166
Unknown Component Using default product and component set in Parameters Unknown milestone "unknown in product shotwell. Setting to default milestone for this product, "---". Setting qa contact to the default for this product. This bug either had no qa contact or an invalid one.
Version: 0.9
Resolution: RESOLVED FIXED