Re: Keyman packages
On 2021-05-11 13:47, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
* keyman-config: Didn't build due to missing Build-Depend
python3-raven.
The latter is weird, since d/control has:
python3-raven | python3-sentry-sdk,
So I can think it should just have installed python3-sentry-sdk and
kept its mouth shut. OTOH, you'd better drop the python3-raven option
in d/control.
I asked at #debian-devel and got an explanation (or not). Please see
attachment.
<GunnarHj> Anybody who can tell if this is a bug or if I'm missing something:
<GunnarHj> https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=keyman-config&suite=experimental
<GunnarHj> d/control includes "python3-raven | python3-sentry-sdk,"
<GunnarHj> python3-raven is indeed gone, but why doesn't it install the latter and start the build?
<wRAR> only the first option is considered
<GunnarHj> wRAR: Why? Is it wrong to use optional packages in Build-Depends?
<wRAR> it's not wrong but as you can see it's useless for buildds
<GunnarHj> wRAR: Yeah, indeed I see it. :)
<wRAR> somebody else will remind about the reasons
<bremner> reproducibility, before it was cool
<wRAR> I think there was something else
<Myon> I guess it was mostly simplicity, which was then declared a feature
<GunnarHj> FWIW, the Ubuntu builder falls back to the alternative package.
<bremner> yeah, that is the main reason that Debian will never change :P
<GunnarHj> ;)
<Myon> hmm, I thought the actual experimental buildds would use the aptitude resolver which does allow that, but this is already failing in wanna-build
<GunnarHj> Myon: Is the behavior specific to experimental, i.e. would it have been happy if it had been unstable?
<Myon> unstable is definitely "first alternative only", and that's a good thing
<Myon> maybe it's only backports that allow it
<DonKult> fwiw it isn't the resolver used who forbids it, but wanna-build itself for most suites. aptitude/aspcud come into consideration (compared to apt) if you want non-candidate versions.
<GunnarHj> Myon: Ok. In this case it's not a big problem, of course, since we can - and should - simply drop the first alternative.
Reply to: