Re: RFS: dbusada
Reto Buerki wrote:
On 03/07/2012 10:50 AM, Ludovic Brenta wrote:
Reto Buerki wrote:
I don't exactly understand the rationale for this rule. In contrast
other packages the gnatgcc command is not needed to build dbusada.
explicitly Build-Depend on the upcoming default compiler gnat-4.6
* Build-Depend on gnat in addition to gnat-4.6
compatibility to other Ada packages is guaranteed.
In section 4:
"Rule: Package ‘gnat’ is the default Ada compiler for Debian. All
containing Ada programs or libraries SHALL use this compiler."
This rule makes it explicit that the package 'gnat-4.6' is NOT the
Ada compiler; the package 'gnat' is.
And the package description of 'gnat' is:
"This is an empty package that depends on the default Ada compiler
Debian, which is part of the GNU Compiler Collection."
gnat currently depends on gnat-4.6, making it the 'current' default
I see no real (besides policy compliance) benefit here for depending
gnat in addition to gnat-4.6. The dbusada package defines that it
exactly gnat-4.6 to build and that every package that depends on
MUST also use this compiler.
This is not sufficient. The policy is designed so that all Ada packages
the *same* compiler. We want to prevent a situation where maintainer A
uploads package libfoo1-dev (depending on gnat-4.6) and maintainer B
package libbar2-dev (depending on gnat-4.7). This is not an error as
the compiler is concerned but it is a policy violation because we want
users to be able to link their executables against *all* libraries if
so wish. Worse, nothing tells maintainer B about this violation.
Now suppose maintainer B adds Build-Depends: gnat to libbar; the policy
violation immediately becomes apparent; the package FTBFS because it
use the default compiler.
In your case, you happen to be using the current default compiler "by
accident"; the policy requires you to use the default compiler