Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
> > 'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
> > field. Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real
> > architecture.
>
> Ah, sure.
>
> However, "source" in Build-Depends could be taken to mean that it
> Build-Depends on the source of the package. Which is not currently
> supported, but I'm sure everyone stuck maintaining foo-source binary
> packages would be happy if it were one day. So perhaps best not to
> overload it.
However, if this would get implemented, it would probably end up using
the multiarch syntax "foo:source" (at least that seems to be the most
logical choice to me).
So I don't believe that this would be in conflict with "foo [source]".
It might be a bit confusing though to use the same keyword in different
situations (and furthermore it should be "foo [any source]" if we don't
want the build-dependency to be dropped...).
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/
Reply to: