Re: Build dependencies, libs and buildd
Ben Collins writes:
> 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.
my concern is, that a timely uploaded python-gnome package wanting to
be built with libfoo-dev/libfoo2 get's built by an autobuilder which
has libfoo-dev/libfoo1 available (the python-gnome source gets built
before the new libfoo-dev source).
Anthony mentioned that this is an autobuild problem, but I don't know
if this problem is already handled.
> From: Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au>
>
> this bug doesn't cause problems for the autobuilders, so it needn't
> be serious right now. the python-dev bug may cause problems in future:
> if you've got a hardcoded << dependency for the packages, you need one
> for the build-depends too. the libgtkhtml-dev versioning probably needs
> to be handled by the autobuilders rather than the maintainer anyway,
> and probably isn't a bug at all.
Reply to: