Re: Test suites after build and Build-Depends.
On 26/01/09 at 23:08 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 26 Jan 2009 22:51:24 +0100]:
>
> > On 26/01/09 at 19:26 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > * Lucas Nussbaum [Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:21:54 +0100]:
>
> > > > It's a chicken-and-egg problem: binary deps are not known until
> > > > you build the binary package...
>
> > > That is simply not true, and not the case with many of our interpreted
> > > languages.
>
> > uh? please explain.
>
> Ok. You package libfoo-ruby. For version 1.0-1, you write in debian/control:
>
> Source: ruby-foo
> Build-Depends: debhelper, ruby
>
> Package: libfoo-ruby1.8
> Depends: ruby (>= 1.8), libbar-ruby1.8, libmoo-ruby1.8, libquack-ruby1.8
>
> ...
>
> Now, version 1.5 comes along, and it adds a testsuite, which is run
> using the libtest-me-harder-ruby1.8 package.
>
> So you run the test suite from debian/rules and update debian/control
> for 1.5-1 like this:
>
> Source: ruby-foo
> Build-Depends: debhelper, ruby, libtest-me-harder-ruby1.8
>
> Package: libfoo-ruby1.8
> Depends: ruby (>= 1.8), libbar-ruby1.8, libmoo-ruby1.8, libquack-ruby1.8
>
> ...
>
> Except that it does not work, because of course the test suite wants to
> run the program, which in turns wants to require 'bar', 'moo', and
> 'quack'.
>
> So your debian/control ends ups like:
>
> Source: ruby-foo
> Build-Depends: debhelper, ruby, libtest-me-harder-ruby1.8, libbar-ruby1.8, libmoo-ruby1.8, libquack-ruby1.8
>
> Package: libfoo-ruby1.8
> Depends: ruby (>= 1.8), libbar-ruby1.8, libmoo-ruby1.8, libquack-ruby1.8
>
> ...
OK. Your point is:
In most cases, the binary stanzas in debian/control will contain the
correct set of binary dependencies at the beginning of the build.
With which I agree, of course.
My point is:
There's nothing mandatory about having the binary stanzas in
debian/control contain correct information at the beginning of the
build.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: