Quoting Adrian Bunk (2018-01-09 20:54:31) > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:22:33PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > > > At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because > > > they would add an unwanted "universe" binary dependency to a "main" > > > package. In some cases, that is the *only* change Ubuntu makes to the > > > package. I believe it benefits Debian for Ubuntu and Debian packaging > > > to be as shared as much as possible. > > > > > > https://launchpad.net/bugs/1734339 > > $64k question: does having to maintain some notion of which build profiles > > to use for a package (and actually maintaining the build profile upstream) > > end up being less effort than a couple of lines of patch to remove a > > dependency? > We already have plenty of packages that use dpkg-vendor to check for ubuntu > or raspbian in debian/rules, and adding something similar for build > dependencies would sound reasonable to me. Currently, the value of the Build-Depends field is just copied to the final source package without making modifications. This is in contrast to the Depends fields of the binary packages in debian/control which can get mangled depending on their architecture annotations or substvars. What you propose would require mangling the Build-Depends field at build-time which is a bad idea for several reasons. Check out the following bugs: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677474 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751437 Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature