Re: Bootstrappable Debian - proposal of needed changes
Charles Plessy wrote:
>Le Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 07:18:40PM +0100, Johannes Schauer a écrit :
>>
>> The build profile format was proposed by Guillem Jover together with
>> other solutions he presented in this document [7] as part of bug#661538.
>> Build profiles extend the Build-Depends format with a syntax similar to
>> architecture restrictions but using < and > instead.
>>
>> Build-Depends: huge (>= 1.0) [i386 arm] <!embedded !stage1>, tiny
>
>Hi Johannes,
>
>It looks to me that the above is trying to implement the equivalent of
>Recommends for build dependancies. "The Recommends field should list packages
>that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations."
>
>Are you entirely sure that you need to distinguish between profiles, instead of
>having the source package build rules do the right things according to which
>recommended packages have been installed ? In that case, your example
>could be reduced to:
>
>Build-Depends: tiny
>Build-Recommends: huge (>= 1.0)
No, not at all. This discussion has happened before, and
Build-Recommends has been suggested before. It's broken, leading to
non-deterministic package builds and associated insanity.
Explicit sets of profiles are an alternative that (it seems) are the
new preferred way to do bootstrapping, and also other optional (but
fully-specified) versions of packages. It's quite possible that it may
be necessary to have several stage profiles, depending on how big a
potential package loop you need to break. In this case, you'll need to
have <!stage1> through to <!stageN> listed for that package.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
Reply to: