Re: Proposal of two new control fields: Build-Recommends and Build-Suggests [long reading]
On 09/02/09 at 01:13 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > - Build-Recommends would list packages that are basically available
> > in the Debian archive, but are not available on all architectures or
> > for all kernels.
>
> Unfortunatly, making missing build-dependencies a non-fatal error
> causes builds to be non-deterministic.
>
> For example, consider a case where libasound2-dev was a no longer
> provided due to an API change to libasound3-dev, and for whatever
> reason, libasound3-dev wasn't installable on some arch subsets
> (perhaps because libasound3 hadn't yet been built.)
>
> > Why have I added libfaad-dev to the Build-Recommends? Because in
> > Ubuntu ffmpeg-debian is in the main section, while faad2 is not. So
> > in order to merge ffmpeg-debian to Ubuntu, the maintainer has to
> > manually remove this Build-Depends each and every time. As soon as
> > Ubuntu would support the suggested approach, this would be obsolete.
>
> I wouldn't be averse to some method of describing additional types of
> conditional dependencies, such as differentiating builds of packages
> on Debian and Ubuntu. [A hideous method of doing this[1]:
> Build-Depends: libfaad-dev | some-only-in-ubuntu-package.]
Couldn't we introduce a pseudo-arch/port named ubuntu, and use:
Build-Depends: libfaad-dev [!ubuntu]?
Of course, that leaves the question of whether Debian maintainers will
agree to add Ubuntu-specific information in their source stanzas. But
this doesn't have to be mandatory anyway.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: