[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Source-Depends implementation

Ben Collins <bmc@visi.net> writes:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 07:25:37PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Ben Collins <bmc@visi.net> writes:
> >
> > > People have been asking for it, so here it is if any one wants to
> > > write the policy for using it.
> >
> > Write policy around a `little hack' (your words)?  Hmm.
> Not sure i what the size of the change has to do with it deserving
> policy.

It's not the size, it's the fact that you yourself describe it as a

> > > There is no versioning of the Source-Depends either since I didn't
> > > think it would be necessary.
> >
> > You're wrong, they're very necessary.
> Examples please.

e.g. libreadlineg2's make_quoted_replacement() was broken (causing
segfaults in es and gdb) in << 2.1-4.  If es or gdb merely depended on
libreadlineg2, people would be free to compile binaries which
segfaulted despite the source dependencies being satisfied.  Proper
constraints would avoid this.

> > > All it does is included the Source-Depends field into the .dsc
> > > file.  This can later be used by apt or dbuild/buildd to verify
> > > that all needed packages are installed for building.
> >
> > sbuild already does this...  (with it's own source dependencies
> > generated from the dependencies of the binary package(s) of the
> > source package and manually added source dependencies).
> This doesn't solve necessary binaries used in the make and build
> process does it?

Yes it does, as those are added by hand.

> And it doesn't help anyone else out...it's useless outside of that
> one program.

That `one program' compiles 98% of packages for m68k and powerpc with
other architectures to come as soon as I get my act together and
finish packaging it.

I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, and I'm also surely not
offering up bits of it as hacks for possible policy inclusion.  You
mentioned buildd, so I felt obliged to point out it was already doing
something different, which worked better than your hack.


Reply to: