Re: Summary? Re: source dependencies - and recomndations

[Steve Greenland <stevegr@NeoSoft.COM>]

On Aug 1, Yann Dirson <dwitch@monge.univ-mlv.fr> wrote:
> Steve Greenland writes:
>  > I don't like Case 2, mostly because I disagree that we ought to be
>  > solving that goal. If you want (re-)build the debian package, then it's
>  > not sufficient, if you don't, you're probably working with the original
>  > source anyway.
> 
> I don't agree with this last sentence: using a debianized source is
> the best way to handle upgrades/uninstalls on a Debian machine. I
> think case 2 could be useful.

But then you'd want to build it like the maintainer, right? So that's
a case 1.

Think about this: Package A depends on B, because it requires
some functionality in B. User re-builds B, but only meets the
"Source-Depends", not the "Source-Suggests", so B is built with
non-Debian-standard functionality. When you install A, it installs OK,
because B is there, and the binary dependency is met, but then A fails
mysteriously because of B's missing functionality.

SteveG

-- 
The Mole - I think, therefore I scream 

			  "Shulang it!	This is exactly the treatment we've
			   come to expect from Delta Airlines!"
[BADGER in NEXUS]


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .