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

Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation

Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Or 'source', short for 'the build-dependency's source code should be
> treated as part of my source code'.  This is already reserved as a
> special architecture name for use in changes file.

Hmm, if it's reserved, what use it is reserved for? Wouldn't want to
step on toes. I can't find where it's reserved in policy.

Did occur to me later that another option would be to just generate
Built-Using for all build dependnecies when the field is turned on in a
package. This would list too much, but perhaps that wouldn't matter.
OTOH, perhaps the archive would be unhappy keeping 20 different versions
of debhelper.

Ansgar Burchardt:
> A third alternative would be to use a comment in d/control:

I considered this, but people and tools will move, reorder, ignore, etc
comments. A common problem would probably be to move a build-depends to
a line under such a comment uninitenionally, or to wrap a line under
such a comment and change the meaning. Also it adds quite a lot of
visual noise when you have a complex build-depends that is already
extensively commented and would need a lot of comments added.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: