Re: possible MBF: automatically detecting unused build dependencies
+++ Steve Langasek [2014-07-07 15:07 -0700]:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:14:44PM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > I agree that it should not be a bug if a package does not fail if a certain
> > build dependency is not installed.
> > Nevertheless, those "false positives" that were generated this way are still
> > useful to be later marked with <!profile.stage1> once build profiles are
> > allowed in the archive because they are obviously droppable.
> No, marking build-dependencies with build profiles should be driven by what
> is needed to break build-dep loops, not by what build-deps are "droppable"
> without further modification of the packages. Excessive stage1 profile
> tagging will result in unnecessary extra builds during a bootstrap.
Whilst I agree that a build-dep being droppable is not necessarily
sufficient reason to mark it as a stage1 profile, I don't agree with
Having a profile available does not mean that it will necessarily be
used/built. The path through the bootstrap is determined by
currently-buildable and profilable packages. Having more profiles
marked just potentially gives us more possible routes through the
dependecny graph, which (up to a point) is generally a useful thing
with a new arch as you don't always know in advance which packages
will be most trouble. The chosen route is unlikely to use all the
profiles available unless there really are only just enough to do it
Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM