Re: translating build-deps, crossbuildable base and marking packages as crossbuildable
Quoting Johannes Schauer (2014-04-25 17:42:34)
> Quoting Dimitri John Ledkov (2014-04-25 01:37:52)
> > What is the meaning of this field? the fact that source package hello is
> > cross-buildable depends a lot on the factors outside of package's
> > authority, and can regress arbitrary when build-depends collectively become
> > not cross-installable. If some sort of tracking/knowledge base is required,
> > I'd prefer for it to be declared elsewhere, e.g. with aid of debtags,
> > archive publishing time generated overrides, etc. Not a field that a
> > package maintainer must manually update and do a sourceful upload.
here is another reason why such a field might be useful:
during bootstrapping there are some cycles of packages with itself. Popular
examples are compilers that needs themselves to be built but there are others
(see type 1 and type 2 self-cycles here  if you are curious). Sometimes it
might just not be possible within reason to remove the listed build dependency.
Instead it might be easier to cross compile that source package to solve the
We are currently preparing to publish the information about this kind of cycle
in the pts. Once packages with the build profile syntax extension can be
uploaded to the archive (latest with jessie release) we can use those to decide
that the problem has been taken care of and that this information does not need
to be displayed anymore.
But that doesnt work for packages where the maintainer decides that
crossbuilding is the easier way to go than solving dependency cycles through
dropping dependencies. Therefore the maintainer should have a way to say "I
declare that my source package should be cross buildable".
As outlined in my earlier email, automated rebuilds could then make sure that
this promise is upheld in practice using the field to decide which packages to
Just another thought.