[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Build dependencies, libs and buildd

On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 11:15:07PM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 04:05:02PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > binary of the newest package of each build dep available in unstable 
> > > before building the package. If that is not the case I would have to 
> > > depend on at least the library version installed on my system it seems.
> > 
> > If the buildd for $arch only has 0.9.9 built (maybe 1.0.0 failed to
> > build), then you have a problem.
> > 
> > The only way to control proper build-deps is to specify them. If your
> > package requires features in a newer version of a library, well you have
> > to build-depend on it. That's the whole reason for having them there.
> That's obvious. What I fear could happen is that
> a) autobuilder takes my package (which works with older libgtkhtml)
>    and builds a binary
> b) the new libgtkhtml hits the autobuilder
> c) the resulting library is installed and the old one used by my 
>    package is removed so that is it uninstallable
> IOW: My package works which whatever is the available version of that
> package. But should I always add 
> libfoo-dev (>= `dpkg -s libfoo-dev|awk /^Ver/ {print $2}`)
> to my build dependencies? Of should libfoo-dev suffice under normal
> conditions?

Under normal conditions, libfoo-dev should work. If say your package
gets built with libfoo1 by the autobuilders, and then libfoo2 is
released and the maintainer says "libfoo1 is going away, rebuild your
packages", then you may need to do something.

Most people feel that not keeping older soname libs around for a certain
period is a bad idea, just for this reason. You as the package builder
shouldn't have to worry about it.


/                   Ben Collins    --    Debian GNU/Linux                  \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: