Andreas Barth wrote: > Also, the binary packages in the debian/control template could have > Build-Depends specified which means that they should only be built if > those packages are actually installed (so we could do an automated > graph analyis, and also dh and cdbs could just drop them, so that > debian/rules doesn't need to reflect the dependencies) So there would need to be an interface in dpkg to get a list of binary packages to build. In order for this not to make debhelper slow, it would need to be a startlingly fast interface, for something that needs to read the status file. :/ Or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS could have something set for this case and the status file lookup avoided in the general case. debhelper would need to disable dh_install --fail-missing in this case too. Happily dh_movefiles is not used by default, as if some packages are not built, this could result in files that were normally put in those packages instead being moved into another package. I don't think other parts of debhelper have problems if some binary packages are skipped. > 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 .... Is "package_version ...." supposed to be a list of the packages and versions used in the minimal build? -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature