Created attachment 107620 [details] [review]
Bug 26109: Update list-deps for Koha 19.05.x to support Debian 8 and 10

to test...

1/ build and install 19.05.x package on deb8 and 10

2/ confirm failure
    $ apt-get -q -y -s install koha-common
    Reading package lists...
    Building dependency tree...
    Reading state information...
    Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
    requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
    distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
    or been moved out of Incoming.
    The following information may help to resolve the situation:
    The following packages have unmet dependencies:
     koha-common : Depends: libperl5.24 but it is not installable
                   Depends: perl-modules-5.24 but it is not installable
    E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
    ERROR: Job failed: exit code 1 <<<<<<<<<<

3/ apply patch

4/ build and install 19.05.x package on deb8 and 10

5/ confirm success
    $ apt-get -q -y -s install koha-common
    $ apt-cache policy koha-common
    koha-common:
      Installed: 19.05.13-1  <<<<<<<<<<
      Candidate: 19.05.13-1

I'm out of the loop about this. So 19.05.x will be able to support Debian 10 now? :D

About Debian 8 the support has been dropped, should this be tested even though not advertised?
Should it be done for the existing installs that might break (if a bug goes undetected)

(In reply to Victor Grousset/tuxayo from comment #2)
> I'm out of the loop about this. So 19.05.x will be able to support Debian 10
> now? :D

hi, yes, the patch should allow 19.05 to be installed on deb10

> About Debian 8 the support has been dropped, should this be tested even
> though not advertised?

yes, i think so. its a quick job to test 'apt install koha-common' on deb8 with docker

> Should it be done for the existing installs that might break (if a bug goes
> undetected)

i think we can skip that test - if the package installs ok, it will upgrade ok too

Has this been fixed by bug 25591?

I'm confused.. what's the status of this one.. does it actually need signoff still?

(In reply to Martin Renvoize from comment #5)
> I'm confused.. what's the status of this one.. does it actually need signoff
> still?

hi Martin, this got resolved in BZ 25591, closing :)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 25591 ***

Thanks, I had lost track of this one.