Re: Introducing Build-Recommends / Build-Core-Depends?
* Joachim Breitner (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110813 16:05]:
> just a minor note:
> Am Samstag, den 13.08.2011, 13:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth:
> > To mark such packages and to be able to decide when to re-schedule the
> > build, all binary-packages get the additional header
> > Build-Depends: minmal package_version ....
> > injected, so that one could see later on that this was a partial build
> > and reschedule a new build when newly upcoming packages allow more
> > binary packages to be built, or all build-dependencies are available
> > and we could do a clean full build.
> This seems to be an unfortunate choice of a field name, as it has
> different semantics than other Build-Depends fields. Why not
As said - names are just names now, and I assume them to change till
implementation. (But if, I think "Build-With" is better.)
> Also, this might be useful independently from your feature, and in all
> package, and is similar to what dh-buildinfo provides.
My proposal isn't restricted to the package required to bootstrapping.
However, if they make bootstrapping way easier, that's the use case
why we should invest the effort. I see more usage in other areas than
only bootstrapping; that's the reason why I tried to make it a bit