[PATCH] Build-Depend on libgmime-2.6-dev | libgmime2.4-dev

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

libgmime-2.6-dev entered debian unstable today.  If 2.6 is available,
notmuch should build against 2.6 instead of 2.4, as 2.6 is the current
upstream stable version of libgmime.
---
 debian/control |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
index f6f415e..b60790e 100644
--- a/debian/control
+++ b/debian/control
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ Build-Depends:
  debhelper (>= 7.0.50~),
  pkg-config,
  libxapian-dev,
- libgmime-2.4-dev,
+ libgmime-2.6-dev | libgmime-2.4-dev,
  libtalloc-dev,
  libz-dev,
  python-all (>= 2.6.6-3~),
--
1.7.8.3

_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[David Bremner-2]

On Thu,  9 Feb 2012 18:20:20 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> libgmime-2.6-dev entered debian unstable today.  If 2.6 is available,
> notmuch should build against 2.6 instead of 2.4, as 2.6 is the current
> upstream stable version of libgmime.

Hi Daniel;

I'm not necessarily opposed to migrating to the Debian packages to gmime
2.6, but I'd like to point out that your patch is might be more decisive
than intended, since the build daemons strip all but the first
dependency. This will cause the build do fail if 2.6 is not
available. For more discussion of this, see
id:"[hidden email]" (debian-devel, Sept. 2011).

David
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 02/10/2012 08:15 AM, David Bremner wrote:
> I'm not necessarily opposed to migrating to the Debian packages to gmime
> 2.6, but I'd like to point out that your patch is might be more decisive
> than intended, since the build daemons strip all but the first
> dependency. This will cause the build do fail if 2.6 is not
> available. For more discussion of this, see
> id:"[hidden email]" (debian-devel, Sept. 2011).

This doesn't worry me.  gmime 2.6 is already successfully built on all
arches except mipsel and armhf:

 https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gmime

i don't think armhf is a blocker at this point (though i've already
followed up with the arm porters about that to see if we can get it
fixed), and mipsel is just typically backlogged (that is, it hasn't
failed, it just hasn't gotten to build yet).

So i don't think switching notmuch over to a 2.6 dependency on the
buildd's would be a hindrance for notmuch.

        --dkg
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[Tomi Ollila-2]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:15:53 -0400, David Bremner <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu,  9 Feb 2012 18:20:20 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > libgmime-2.6-dev entered debian unstable today.  If 2.6 is available,
> > notmuch should build against 2.6 instead of 2.4, as 2.6 is the current
> > upstream stable version of libgmime.
>
> Hi Daniel;
>
> I'm not necessarily opposed to migrating to the Debian packages to gmime
> 2.6, but I'd like to point out that your patch is might be more decisive
> than intended, since the build daemons strip all but the first
> dependency. This will cause the build do fail if 2.6 is not
> available. For more discussion of this, see
> id:"[hidden email]" (debian-devel, Sept. 2011).

For the time being, should the order be:

- libgmime-2.4-dev,
+ libgmime-2.4-dev | libgmime-2.6-dev,

?

>
> David

Tomi
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 02/10/2012 03:57 PM, Tomi Ollila wrote:
> For the time being, should the order be:
>
> - libgmime-2.4-dev,
> + libgmime-2.4-dev | libgmime-2.6-dev,

2.6 is available and functional in unstable.  I think we should prefer 2.6.

This will enable (and encourage) us to approach S/MIME support too
(which isn't offered in 2.4), as well as helping flush out any concerns
with 2.6.  Leaving 2.4-dev as an optional b-d will make backporting
simpler, but i think we should try to use (and support) upstream's
stable gmime branch.

        --dkg
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[David Bremner-2]

On Thu,  9 Feb 2012 18:20:20 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[hidden email]> wrote:
> libgmime-2.6-dev entered debian unstable today.  If 2.6 is available,
> notmuch should build against 2.6 instead of 2.4, as 2.6 is the current
> upstream stable version of libgmime.

Pushed.

d
_______________________________________________
notmuch mailing list
[hidden email]
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch