Re: Some autobuilders wait for build-indep dependencies
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote:
> > Debian Policy only knows as much as what we put in it. Therefore it
> > isn't almighty, and it *certainly* isn't a stick to beat people with, as
> > you're trying to do here. The fact that some insanity isn't in
> > policy doesn't mean you should suddenly start doing it in your
> > package.
> It was not my intention to use Policy as a stick but as the only
> authoritative argument I was willing to accept for destructive "DO NOT
> DO THAT" statements without further argumentation.
Well, I did give you two more paragraphs of argumentation, actually, but
> > Changing the behaviour o your debian/rules file based on the
> > architecture you're trying to build on, is a *very* bad idea,
> > policy or no policy. If you really, *really* must make sure that
> > build-indep isn't ran everywhere, then read Policy 4.9, `build',
> > paragraph 2:
> > I'm sure you understand what I mean here.
> Not really. This paragraph applies when the build target does not make
> much sense. But zeroc-ice builds a single tree and building the whole
> package does really make sense.
I think you're reading more in that paragraph than is meant; it says
"For some packages, notably ones where the same source tree is compiled
in different ways (...)", not "For packages where the same source tree
is compiled in different ways (...)", which to me suggests it can apply
to other cases too rather than just the given example.
YMMV, of course.
> In any case I think the next release will be acceptable to you, as long
> as it does more or less the same as package orsa.
I do think that if you say "dpkg-buildpackage" without any argument, it
should either build all packages (if possible) or fail (if not possible
on that architecture or for some other reason). This makes it clear that
some particular thing isn't supported on a particular place, and makes
the lives of other people not familiar with your package easier. If your
setup will do this by having binary-indep depend on build-indep, then
yes, that sounds like something sane. If not, I seriously urge you to
reconsider. But as you rightly point out, there's nothing in policy to
back that up for me, so I'll shut up about that now.
What *is* in policy for me to ask you, though, is that if you do
something insane like not having 'dpkg-buildpackage' fail if
binary-indep can't be built for some reason, you should document that in
debian/README.source; see policy 4.14. Lucky me that proposal of mine
got into policy a few months ago :-)
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
-- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22