Hi all, Quoting Helmut Grohne (2015-08-24 07:32:16) > If I remember correctly, dpkg-gencontrol reduces architecture and > profile restrictions, so these work by chance. > It is not clear how to implement :native for mk-build-deps, because it does > not differentiate between build architecture and host architecture. Maybe the > simplest fix would be to s/:native// in mk-build-deps and declare cross > support unfixably broken. Dima Kogan already observed that it does not work > at all in #794538. This is fixable. It has to be because building a binary package to satisfy dependencies already works in other situations while still being cross-aware, most notably in sbuild. Namely, what mk-build-deps should do is to copy the sbuild behaviour: - use libdpkg-perl to parse and process the Build-{Depends,Conflicts}* fields and filter architecture and profile restrictions correctly - change the meaning of its --arch option (this currently does some magic depending on whether the source package has architecture specific build dependencies or not): - this option should specify the HOST architecture - the generated binary package should be of this architecture (this is already the case) - foo:native dependencies should be converted to foo:$build - the dependency on build-essential should be build-essential:$build - if host != build, then an additional build dependency on crossbuild-essential-$host:$build should be added - change the created binary package name to have "cross" or a similar identifier in its name so that it can be installed at the same time with a package for a native build for the same source package Doing all this is not very hard and the code even already exists in perl in the function setup_apt_archive() in the sbuild source code at lib/Sbuild/ResolverBase.pm: http://sources.debian.net/src/sbuild/0.65.2-1.1/lib/Sbuild/ResolverBase.pm/#L692 > Actually, is there any use of mk-build-deps after experimental's apt has > transitioned to unstable? It allows "apt-get build-dep foo.dsc" and "apt-get > build-dep extracted-package". Just wondering. Yes. mk-build-deps creates a meta package that is easily identifiable, so it makes it easy to keep track of the list of source packages for which I installed their build dependencies on my system, so that I can easily select which ones I want to keep or remove. I assume that the new "apt-get build-dep foo.dsc" code marks the newly installed binaries as manually installed, so it is harder to remove them. With mk-build-deps, only the meta package is marked as manually installed and the rest can easily be removed by the removal of the meta package with "apt-get autoremove". > It is also unclear how to ever implement full build profile support into > mk-build-deps. It seems that the generated package name should not only > depend on B-D vs. B-D-I and the source package name, but also on selected > profiles. Yes. But right now, mk-build-deps doesn't even allow selecting any build profiles, this is a separate feature request. Once it does it probably wants to use libdpkg-perl and in that case it has to be careful also to read the environment variable DEB_BUILD_PROFILES when it inserts the selected build profiles into the output package name. cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature