Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFC declarative built-using field generation
- From: Goswin von Brederlow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:13:13 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20130305131313.GC345@frosties>
- In-reply-to: <20130208031122.GA9222@gnu.kitenet.net>
- References: <20130207190907.GA18430@gnu.kitenet.net> <email@example.com> <20130208005101.GA2809@gnu.kitenet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130208031122.GA9222@gnu.kitenet.net>
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
This also assumes that foo source will have Provides: foo-source.