Re: Bug#687001: ITP: optional-dev -- fake (empty) dev package
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:30:30 Adam Borowski wrote:
> I'm afraid this is a bad idea for three reasons:
> 1. you'd get a misbuild if libfoo-dev happens to be temporarily
> uninstallable due to a transition of something it depends on,
> it or one of its dependencies happen to wait for a co-installed
> multiarch package, and so on
> 2. same, if libfoo-dev is not yet built. It can happen if it has just been
> uploaded, we're in the middle of an archive rebuild (a new arch, some
> derivative), etc.
Good points, thanks. I did't think of this. Perhaps this idea is not flawless
but we might have a potential for improvement.
> 3. don't certain build modes (sbuild IIRC) ignore any alternatives in the
> first place? If so, you'll cause a FTBFS.
You might know better if that's the case. But if build servers are ignoring
alternatives, that's a (different) problem, right?
I recognise a potential for misuse of trivially satisfiable dependency but
generally speaking you don't blame tool for those who misuse it...
Thanks for sharing your concerns.