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

Re: Dropping support for debian/xcontrol

On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:49:33 +0000
Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:

> +++ Neil Williams [2011-03-04 22:26 +0000]:
> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:37:51 +0000
> > Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > The replacement is debian/control - at least it's always correct.
> But gives no information about which deps are build and which host,
> which was the reason for xcontrol.

True - xcontrol also bit rots.
> > Is it really worth patching packages to update / create
> > debian/xcontrol merely to avoid a few packages listed for xapt to
> > process?
> So your point is that you are relying on xapt's 'install everything
> cross anyway' behaviour so the distinction between build and host deps
> is not important?
> I guess that's fair enough. 

Now that I've refactored embuilddeps, it might be easier to restore
support for debian/xcontrol but I still question whether it is worth
the hassle of keeping xcontrol files up to date without any automated
tools for maintainers to do that task.

Bootstrapping is going into debian/control for the same reasons that I
don't think it's worth retaining debian/xcontrol. Maintainers care
about debian/control.

> > It's only embuilddeps that's changing. Very few packages have
> > debian/xcontrol files in Debian.
> I was thinking about its use elsewhere (like in TCLs build system). I
> agree it's not really any use within Debian itself. 

TCL's build system is being adapted (by Hector) to use debian/control
rather than xcontrol and then it can use sbuild, wanna-build and other
tools. This refactoring of embuilddeps is to support cross-building
using sbuild.
> > embuilddeps is changing to install native and cross dependencies,
> > both based on debian/control. Same list for both. IMHO
> > debian/xcontrol is unsustainable and for sane pbuilder/sbuild
> > support, the xcontrol file should be ignored.
> OK, yes, if you just install everything in both flavours then it
> serves no purpose. 

OK. I'll leave it out.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpUIm5w876rD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: