Re: Bootstrappable Debian - a decision is needed, patches exist
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Johannes Schauer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> This email is a follow up on the thread started January 2013 . In summary:
> it seems that the ability to bootstrap Debian from scratch and the requirement
> to extend the Build-Depends syntax meet general agreement.
> What is yet to be decided is the concrete format for the Build-Depends syntax extension. The first proposals suggested a syntax which looked like
> Build-Depends: foo [amd64] <!stage1>
I'd prefer Build-Depends-Stage1 if possible.
When bootstrap, dpkg only ask for these build-depends while for normal build,
dpkg should merge Build-Depends-Stage1 and Build-Depends.
> Which would indicate that the build dependency "foo" would not apply if the
> build profile called "stage1" is activated. It was critisized  that this
> syntax wastes a meta character and thus prohibits future extensions of the
> Build-Depends syntax. Therefore the second proposal (finalised at debconf13)
> looked like this:
> Build-Depends: foo [amd64] [!profile.stage1]
> The rectangular brackets are reused and a prefixed namespace is used to
> indicate that "stage1" is a build profile name. We hoped this would be the
> final spec, given the previous discussion, but those brackets also got some
> pushback  and thus the third version was born:
> Build-Depends: foo [amd64] <!profile.stage1>
> We wrote down the last two options in form of a spec on the Debian wiki .
> Patches for dpkg, python-debian, apt and sbuild implementing the original
> format have existed for years . Patches for the new formats have existed for
> some time as well . They are surely not perfect but we would like to get
> them into a state in which they can be integrated into dpkg. But for that we
> need some feedback from the dpkg devs as well as a final decision of the Debian
> community about which syntax to choose. We are writing to d-devel this time
> because the thread on d-dpkg [6,7] has been dormant for a month once again.
> Maybe bringing this issue to a wider audience will help make a decision on this
> problem. The results from two years of GSoC [8,9] as well as the year long
> efforts of others  cannot bear any fruit without this issue finally being
> taken care of.
> Thank you!
> josch & wookey
>  http://lists.debian.org/20130115181840.GA16417@hoothoot
>  http://email@example.com
>  http://lists.debian.org/20130816121504.GB20673@gaara.hadrons.org
>  http://people.debian.org/~wookey/bootstrap/patches/profiles/tools/
>  http://lists.debian.org/20130917103117.2726.40546@hoothoot
>  http://lists.debian.org/20130419194252.17205.76995@hoothoot
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2013/08/msg00019.html
>  http://www.alkmim.eti.br/~alkmim/gitrepo/autobootstrap.git
>  https://gitorious.org/debian-bootstrap/botch
>  http://people.debian.org/~wookey/bootstrap
>  https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: 20131015060337.7934.42627@hoothoot">http://lists.debian.org/20131015060337.7934.42627@hoothoot