Re: suggestion: build-blockers field in control file
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011, peter green <email@example.com> wrote:
> Some packages have runtime dependencies on packages that they do not
> have corresponding build-dependencies for. This leads to the building of
> uninstallable packages which in turn leads to problems with testing
> transition of packages.
> Currently there are two workarounds for this situation
> 1: manually alter the package's architecture list to limit building to
> those architectures where runtime dependencis
> 2: add an artificial build-dependency
Why are such things required?
Why not have software which wants to have the dependencies of a package look
at the dependencies line as well as the build-dependencies?
It seems to me that the package maintainers are already providing the
necessary information and the people who maintain autobuilder systems just
need to use it.
I can't imagine that changing lots of packages and keeping track of new
packages with similar issues would take less work than changing an
autobuilder. I also can't imagine that changing lots of packages would be as
My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/
My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/