The whole argumentation is based on the argument that some the very same
alternatives are used in every task of any blend in the same way. But
there is absolutely no reason to assume this.
You can habe
Depends: pkg1, pkg2 | pkg3
Depends: blendB and taskY pkg1 | pkg2
I do not know a real existing example but I guess you could find one.
udd=# SELECT alternatives from blends_dependencies_alternatives where alternatives like '%k3b%' or alternatives like '%brasero%';
k3b | brasero
k3b-i18n | brasero
So if you find brasero or k3b what would you enter into the resulting
Well, that is just *our* alternatives string but not the one the editor
of the tasks file has injected. What of he did it on purpose in a
Yesterday I made some additional progress but it seems I have some
remaining error, because I get more lines in the alternatives table
than in the pure package dependencies table:
udd=# SELECT (SELECT count(*) from blends_dependencies_alternatives) as altcount, (SELECT count(*) from blends_dependencies) as depcount ;
altcount | depcount
5764 | 5022
I'd like to check why this is the case to this extend before I commit
this to the public Git repository.
> > Meanwhile I'd recommend you might look into the source of the openjdk7
> > package how the different control files for the different architectures
> > are created there. Perhaps this might give you an idea because it seems
> > even after my rewording on debian-mentors there was no helpful answer to
> > your question.
I could imagine some kind of debian/control dummy file that will be saved and replaced in the build target and restored in the clean target. Seems to be doable but somehow hackish.
In openjdk they do it more or less the same way as you say above, so I think if we can also do it that way :-)
Greetings from Porto Alegre (I'll now have breakfast ;-))