[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bootstrappable Debian - proposal of needed changes

+++ Ian Jackson [2013-01-16 13:50 +0000]:

>  * The concrete syntax in build-depends should not use < > but rather
>    reuse the architecture qualification syntax.

I have just been told of a specific reason to avoid using '< >' :
DEP-11 proposes to use '< >' for Component metadata in binary packages 

Should this profile stuff be written up as a 'DEP'? 

I think I missed the creation of DEPs somewhere along the way, but I
keep seeing mentions of them. Aha: 'Debian Enhancement Proposals'. I
guess that fits the bill. 

Just today we got patches to give apt (build-dep) profile support using 
-o APT::Build-Profile and sbuild to use that, so the missing piece to
sbuild --host <arch> --profile <profile> <package>_<version>

arrived. Which means that a bootstrap up to a buildd chroot can
consist of nothing but a series of sbuild commands.

(This doesn't quite work yet due to a a few missing bits of
multiarchness, and a few packages that don't cross successfully yet
(most notably perl).

See my update at FOSDEM, and we'll do a summary from this thread in
the not-too-distant.

Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM

Reply to: