Message-ID: <4F355ACA.7070309@fifthhorseman.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:58:34 -0500
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120125 Icedove/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build-Depend on libgmime-2.6-dev | libgmime2.4-dev
References: <1328829620-28220-1-git-send-email-dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
	<87lioaesmu.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca>
In-Reply-To: <87lioaesmu.fsf@rocinante.cs.unb.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Notmuch Mail <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
Precedence: list

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:"20110920181701.GQ3245@codelibre.net" (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