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

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:

> · Standard alternative use in the form "concrete|virtual", as used for
>   normal deps on virtual packages.  Is this sensible?
> · Architecture-specific dependencies
> · Broken uses.  Dependencies on multiple different libraries which will
>   lead to inconsistent builds.  This affects only a tiny minority of
>   packages.  The most obviously broken one I found is already fixed.
> · Pointless and/or broken
>   perl (>= 5.10) | libmodule-build-perl

Could you please explain what's "pointless and/or broken" about that

(Except that it's old since even lenny has 5.10.0. More recent
perl (>= 5.10.1) | libtest-simple-perl (>= 0.88)
perl (>= 5.12.3) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.3601)

> My take on this is that anything other than arch-specific alternatives
> should be strongly discouraged, if not outright banned, and that this
> should be put into Policy.  Alternative viewpoints, with examples and
> rationale would be useful to hear.

For perl packages: if Module::Build, Test::More, etc. (as dual-lifed
modules) are in two packages, I see no point in not allowing them
both. And this makes backporting, building "at home" etc. easier.

 .''`.   http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `'   Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-    NP: Police: King Of Pain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: