Re: Bootstrappable Debian - proposal of needed changes
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:54:26AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013, Colin Watson wrote:
> > This is cleaner than any of the other options I've come up with: it
> > doesn't require hardcoding a list of "toolchain packages" that have
> > special cross versions; it would allow us to stop having to shove
> > pkg-config-HOST into cross-build chroots; and it wouldn't require
> > dpkg-checkbuilddeps to violate layers by looking in the apt cache, at
> > least as long as the available file is up to date. Does it seem sane to
> > people?
>
> The /var/lib/dpkg/available file is almost never up-to-date unless you use
> dselect... so that part doesn't look so sane unless I missed something.
True.
Maybe this plan can be rescued, though. Provided that a version of the
package is installed, the control field will be present in the status
file; so, after you install the build-architecture version,
dpkg-checkbuilddeps could look at that and know that it still needs a
host-architecture version.
Now, this is a bit awkward because you need two passes if you're relying
entirely on dpkg-checkbuilddeps rather than on a higher-level tool that
can inspect the apt cache; but it's only for cross builds, and
dpkg-checkbuilddeps doesn't always print an accurate list of packages to
install in any event (e.g. virtual packages). I think that the most
important part of its contract is still met as long as it exits zero if
and only if all build-dependencies are satisfied, and it would still be
able to do that.
Does that sound acceptable?
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: