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

Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control Depends field??

Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: dpkg-buildpackage now reorganizing debian/control Depends 	field??"):
> I can certainly change dpkg-shlibdeps to define ${shlibs:Depends} that way.
> For other variables, it's more difficult (substition variables do not
> always contain dependencies, and the substitution is done globally on all
> the fields at the same time without any knowledge of what they are
> substituting).

This is a discussion of implementation details.  There is no
particular reason why things have to be this way.

> Note however that the dependency is always simplified... redundant
> information are discarded and I probably don't want to codify in stone
> precisely how this simplification is done. ("pkg (>= C)" implies "pkg" and
> thus "pkg" is discarded and "pkga | pkgb" is similarly discarded by
> "pkga", etc.).

I think that we should specify how the simplification is done.  This
would come out in the wash if we wrote down as part of the official
specification the currently-understood semantics of similar branches
in ands and ors.

If we wrote that specification, then the basis for the simplification
would be straightforward: it should be done only insofar as it doesn't
change the meaning.


Reply to: