On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:23:37 +0100 Ansgar Burchardt <ansgar@debian.org> wrote: > On 01/16/2013 08:56, Neil Williams wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:26:53 +0100 > > Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> wrote: > >> Not only dpkg, but also wanna-build, sbuild, lintian, dak, and who knows > >> what else... > > > > It's about which ones need to change. lintian response rates are not > > likely to be a problem - once this gets approved. dak doesn't > > necessarily need to do anything - most bootstrapping happens outside > > the main archive to prepare the ground for a move into debian-ports. > > Beyond that point, none of the bootstrapping support is required. > > If you want to use new Build-Depends features for packages in the main > archive, dak needs patches too: "dak rm -R" will warn if Build-Depends > are broken by a package removal. So it needs to be able to understand > the field. That depends whether bootstrapping <foo> fields need to cover the *inclusion* of extra Build-Depends only for bootstrapping which would not normally be installed as a default Debian build. Otherwise, dak can have a simpler patch to just allow but ignore <foo> content in Build-Depends. The main archive only needs to "carry" this extra information without needing to act upon it. If dak needs patches to allow-and-ignore the new information, that can be done. Most bootstrapping changes are to turn off features by not build-depending on packages which can be turned off in debian/rules. I'm not sure if we are going to find this situation: Source: foo Build-Depends: bar <!embedded>, baz <+embedded> (especially where bar does not depend on baz and therefore standard Debian builds would not normally install it. If bar depends on baz then this isn't a problem and dak can ignore all the <> content without any effects.) We may be able to implement dak support to allow-and-ignore and then deal with the above corner-case later. Wookey, Johannes: has anything come up so far which would trigger this corner case? > python-apt would need to support the field for the same reason. And we > would need the support in stable (or backports) for dak to use it. backports would be manageable. > > sbuild can use a specified bootstrapping dependency resolver, e.g. the > > one used to test the proposal itself. (As could pbuilder.) > > And the official buildd network would need to use these before any > package using build profiles in Build-Depends could be uploaded to the > main archive. Isn't that also a case of allow-but-ignore or allow-with-hardcoded-default ? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpQgHvuYolfv.pgp
Description: PGP signature