Re: RFC: "autobuilder" pseudo-package
Simon Richter <email@example.com> writes:
> inspired by the "how to detect if inside a buildd chroot" thread:
> would it make sense to have an (empty) package "autobuilder" that all
> packages that are not supposed to be installed on autobuilders
> (daemons, packages requiring interactive configuration, ...) can
> conflict against?
Just in case some depends pulls it in unintentionally?
In that case I think sbuild would just happily remove it and that
would be that. Or do you want to make it essential? :)
At a minimum you need sbuild to know about it. But I haven't yet seen
why rc policy settings should not do the trick.