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

Re: Build-Depend'ing on libasound2-dev just for Linux


Your option sound like exactly what I need. The package using libasound2-dev 
during build only needs it if we are using Linux. The packages could possibly 
be built on a Debian BSD port or whatever in the future.

I apologize if my e-mail wasn't clear. The linux-kernel-headers build-dep is 
probably the sanest solution for my package, as it would cut out a lot of old 
cruft that has been hanging around.

Are those archs (hurd-i386 netbsd-i386 kfreebsd-i386) defined by dpkg or 
another package like type-handling??

Thanks everyone :)


On September 15, 2005 03:26 pm, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Lawrence Williams [Thu, 15 Sep 2005 13:13:14 -0230]:
> > I seen an example of a possible choice in xorg-x11 packages that
> > Build-Dep on linux-kernel-headers, but I wasn't sure if I should follow
> > their example:
> >
> > linux-kernel-headers (>= 2.6.13+0rc3-1.1)
> > [!hurd-i386 !netbsd-i386 !kfreebsd-i386]
> >
> > In Debian, does this prevent it from building on anything other than
> > Linux??
>   Of course not, read Policy. What is saying is, "this package needs
>   l-k-h to build, _unless_ we're on hurd-i386, netbsd-i386, or
>   kfreebsd-i386; in that case, it's ok that l-k-h is not present".
> * David Moreno Garza [Thu, 15 Sep 2005 12:10:38 -0500]:
> > On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 13:05 -0400, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> > > Doesn't the type-handling package do what you guys are looking for?
> >
> > Yes, it does. And it rocks.
>   No, it does not (rock). And, fortunately, it's going to die. If you're
>   curious what's going to replace it, check Guillem Jover's patch in
>   #291939 (last message in the bug).
>   When/if it gets implemented, you'll be able to:
>     Build-Depends: libasound2-dev [linux-any]
>     Build-Depends: firebird2-dev  [any-i386]
>   Cheers,
> --
> Adeodato Simó
>     EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
> I went to the race track once and bet on a horse that was so good that
> it took seven others to beat him!

Reply to: