Re: Introducing Build-Recommends / Build-Core-Depends?
* Joey Hess (email@example.com) [110815 18:32]:
> 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.
I'd rather consider the second case - accept a slower debhelper on
> 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.
Ok - we should add that to "if the maintainer enables this mechanismn,
he needs to make sure that ..." (and in lots of cases, that's not an
issue). Does that sound ok?
> > 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?
Yes. We basically have a list of such packages anyways within the
buildd log these days, but adding it here wouldn't hurt.