Bug#757941: Bug#769190: busybox-static: DNS resolver is broken again with the last upload

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:03:39AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >> Should I list them all in the build-deps?  If yes, what's the complete list?
> 
> > It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev [alpha ia64] | libc0.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [kfreebsd-any] | libc0.3 (2.19-12~) [hurd-any]
> 
> Please double-check:
> 
> Build-Depends:
> # glibc static-nss #754813, 2.19..2.19-11, -12 is ok
>  libc6-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [linux-any !alpha !ia64] |
>  libc6-dev (<< 2.19)     [linux-any !alpha !ia64] |
>  libc6.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [alpha ia64] |
>  libc6.1-dev (<< 2.19)     [alpha ia64] |
>  libc0.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [kfreebsd-any] |
>  libc0.1-dev (<< 2.19)     [kfreebsd-any] |
>  libc0.3-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [hurd-any] |
>  libc0.3-dev (<< 2.19)     [hurd-any],

That looks lok.

> Since this is all alternatives, is it really necessary to list the [arch]
> names?  I mean, just list of pkgs with versions should be enough I think,
> each arch will pick the right name, no?

sbuild only considers the first alternative, so it won't work.

Alternatively I think I have found a better solution.
libc{0.1,0.3,6,6.1}-dev strictly depends on libc-dev-bin, so if you
build-depends on libc-dev-bin (>> 2.19-12~) | libc-dev-bin (<< 2.19),
the libcX-dev package will also get the same version.

Aurelien

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net