On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:58:06AM +0900, 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." Recommends are totally useless for build-dependencies and this idea is a non-starter. Builds *must* be reproducible and *must not* rely on arbitrary variations in the build environment. The fundamental requirement for these profiles is for bootstrapping; we must have a guarantee that at each stage of the bootstrap, the output is well-formed to support the next stage of the bootstrap, and that at the *end* of the bootstrap the result is a complete package and not an arbitrary subset. > 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 ? Yes. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature