Re: [buildd-tools-devel] re buildd's resolver and package's build deps
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 23:26:27 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:05:28AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most
> > > pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild
> > > resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which
> > > will make them behave pretty much exactly like the old internal
> > > resolver, but without its bugs. This will leave maintainers free to
> > > use alternative dependencies, but like now they will be ignored.
> > > What we can do though, is make the use of alternatives configurable
> > > in sbuild, so you will be able to make use of them when building for
> > > other suites e.g. backports. This will disable the stripping.
> > >
> > What's the purpose of doing this after arch reduction?
> If you do it before you'd remove any alternative arch-specific deps,
> so by doing it after you only remove the alternatives you don't care
I'm still not sure how 'Build-Depends: foo [i386] | bar [amd64]'
would make sense (as opposed to making it an 'and'). Looking at the
archive it seems coinor-csdp and the gcc packages at least are using
something like that, so nevermind.