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