Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation

[Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de>]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:11:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has
> > 'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture
> > field.  Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real
> > architecture.
> 
> Ah, sure.
> 
> However, "source" in Build-Depends could be taken to mean that it
> Build-Depends on the source of the package. Which is not currently
> supported, but I'm sure everyone stuck maintaining foo-source binary
> packages would be happy if it were one day. So perhaps best not to
> overload it.

But isn't that exactly what you specify? You do depend on the source
of the package.

It would be greate to have a policy for foo-source package, if that
doesn't already exist, where to place the source in such a way that a
future support for Build-Depends on source packages would also put it.
That way "Build-Depend: foo-source [any source]" would currently
install foo-source but in the future it would unpack the foo source
instead.

This also assumes that foo source will have Provides: foo-source.

MfG
	Goswin