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

Re: Bits from the experimental autobuilder team (or: For Those Who Care About Experimental...)

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 09:28:27PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hello World,
> As many of you undoubtedly know, experimental is autobuilt these days.

> However, it will only work if the build-dependencies are fully
> specified; i.e., if a package 'foo' in experimental requires another
> package in experimental (let's call that one 'bar'), and another package
> needs 'foo' from experimental to build, then just installing 'foo' from
> experimental isn't going to cut it; you would end up with a command line
> like "apt-get install foo=<experimental version>", which would try to
> install the experimental version of foo with the unstable version of
> bar, and fail because of unmet versioned dependencies.
> The solution[1] to this problem lies in a different use of the
> build-depends field: we're hereby asking maintainers who upload to
> experimental, to make sure to fully specify their build-dependencies on
> experimental packages; not just the packages they directly depend on,
> but also the packages they indirectly, through other packages, depend
> on.
> Let me repeat that, because it's quite important: if you upload a
> package to experimental, and you declare a versioned build-depends on
> something that is also in experimental, then you *must* make sure that
> you also declare a versioned build-depends on any other packages from
> experimental that your direct build-dependencies depend on; otherwise,
> your package *will not build*.
> It is, of course, not necessary to also declare versioned build-depends
> on indirectly-required packages from unstable.
Is there a tool to recurively list version of dependencies, as
reportbug does?

(Please Cc me)

Reply to: