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

Re: dpkg-checkbuilddeps to generate a frontend friendly package list

]] George Danchev 

| It adds -f option which tries to prepare such a list via facilities
| provided by AptPkg. List comes to STDOUT, while warnings to STDERR, so
| users can filter these as well. Build-Conflicts are added as package-.

A minor thing, I'd rather just have this enabled by default.  The build
is going to fail anyway, so spitting out three extra lines isn't a big

| The problem here is that frontends only handle '=' relation, at best,
| so we can only pass them package=version regardless of whether user
| supplied >>, <<,
| >=, <= or = in their Build-Depends and Build-Coflicts line from
| >debian/control.
| That -f option does not try to be very smart, and after verifying that
| Build- Depends/Conflicts could be satisfied it leaves the package
| version selection to the frontend based on its current settings.

I think this is fine.  It solves 95% of the cases people are interested


| 1) Would you accept patches like that, based on AptPkg, i.e. is it too
| intrusive for you? I can see your reasons if you prefer to avoid the
| extra dependency on libapt-pkg-perl.

Other people have written about how to make this optional, and
particularly if this is just used in --minimal-versions-only-please
mode, I don't see the problem.

I don't have commit rights, and I haven't looked at your patch yet, but
as an idea on how to approach this, it sounds good.

| 2) Introduce a separate tool in a separate source/binary package which
| could then depends on whatever is needed.

If so, there's misc stuff in pbuilder which does this already.  I'd
rather have dpkg-checkbuilddeps spit out and apt-gettable line.

| 3) Rewrite that with calls to `apt-cache policy' (to get available
| package versions) and `dpkg --compare-versions' (for version
| comparisons), which is not a sign of great engineering ;-)

Let's not try to parse our own output. :-)

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: