Re: ARMv4-support in armel/squeeze?
* Konstantinos Margaritis (markos@genesi-usa.com) [101220 23:43]:
> I never said it would be easy, but having said that, I like your
> suggestion better, it's more elegant.
> Of course it would still need changes from the maintainers, but it's
> much easier to have that
> accepted indeed.
Especially one could tweak e.g. debhelper in a way that it accepts
per-package dependencies, and doesn't try to build packages where
dependencies are missing.
e.g., back to my example, in debian/control, that would be listed as:
Source: bash
Build-Depends: autoconf, autotools-dev, patch, bison, libncurses5-dev [!bootstrap], texinfo [!bootstrap], debhelper (>= 5), texi2html [!bootstrap], locales, gettext, sharutils, time, xz-utils
Build-Depends-Indep: texlive-latex-base [!bootstrap], ghostscript [!bootstrap]
Package: bash-doc
Build-Depends: texinfo, texi2html, texlive-latex-base, ghostscript
Which means that if any of these packages is not present, then
debhelper doesn't build the package bash-doc.
Some support to make debian/rules easier shouldn't be too hard, but
should be done.
> On 21 December 2010 00:17, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> > That's not possible. There is a minimal set of packages
> > build-depending on themselfs - but we should try to keep that set as
> > minimal as possible.
> These are not the rule to what I am suggesting. My point is eg.
> multi-node cycles in the dependency tree, like lvm2, network-manager,
> libsoup, avahi, subversion build-depending on kde, gettext(!) on git
> and many more like that.
Many of these seem to be avoidable (at least for the
bootstrap-variant, and that's enough for our purposes - building them
yet another time after the initial build isn't too bad, as long as
that doesn't require manual actions), but e.g. bash build-depending on
e.g. debhelper, which needs perl, which needs ... won't be easily
achivable.
Andi
Reply to: