debian/list-deps does not work on Jessie because the folder structure has changed.
Created attachment 52028 [details] [review] Bug 16643 - Make debian/list-deps aware of Jessie folder structure the old regex did not match the new folder structure
Created attachment 54224 [details] [review] Bug 16643 - Make debian/list-deps aware of Jessie folder structure the old regex did not match the new folder structure Rebased to depend on bug 17043
You can test in a regex tester if the shorter regex matches the four examples from the patch. https://regex101.com /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl/5.20.2/POSIX.pm /usr/lib/perl/5.14.2/POSIX.pm /usr/lib/perl5/POSIX.pm /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/perl5/5.20/YAML/Syck.pm
Created attachment 54226 [details] [review] Bug 16643 - Make debian/list-deps aware of Jessie folder structure the old regex did not match the new folder structure Rebased to depend on bug 17043
^/usr/((lib|share)/perl5| (lib|share)/perl/[0-9.]+| (lib|share)/.*-linux-gnu.*/perl/[0-9.]+| (lib|share)/.*-linux-gnu.*/perl5/[0-9.]+) ^/usr/((lib|share)/(.*-linux-gnu.*/)?perl5?/?[0-9.]+)? Ah.... there is the difference, the first one is lacking the "/[0-9.]+" part. The four examples you gave do match. /usr/lib/perl5/5.14.2/POSIX.pm -- would not match the first. But is that even possible.
Mark, did you intend to sign off or is there an open question? I am getting a bit lost here, but would be nice to see this moving along finally. When I try to use ./debian/list-deps I get a lot of output with "EEK" that seems the same with and without the patch. Need some hints to do better testing.
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #6) > Mark, did you intend to sign off or is there an open question? It's been a while, but that seems to be more of a "something's not quite right some how".
(In reply to Mirko Tietgen from comment #0) > debian/list-deps does not work on Jessie because the folder structure has > changed. Please give a sample path that fails. Because while your regular expression tweak is prettier and a little broader, I can't think of a case that we might actually care about that would fail. Changing to in discussion as a result.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 17043 ***