Re: Summary? Re: source dependencies - and recomndations
Steve Greenland writes:
> On Aug 1, Yann Dirson <email@example.com> 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.
Maybe, but maybe not...
> 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.
Granted for missing functionnalities. What about *additionnal* ones
(eg. commercial libs that are not part of Debian, or libs that can't
be used in some countries (crypto), that could add functionnalities to
an otherwise useful program)
But surely, what you point out about missing functionnalities should
be addressed. Don't see how, though. Seems like it'd be quite
complicated, and maybe we should choose not to support that until
we've got a working framework for this...
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .