On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 04:40:57PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > David Kalnischkies <email@example.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 19:25, Ø£ØÙ?Ø¯ Ø§Ù?Ù?ØÙ?Ù?Ø¯Ù? <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:07:07PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >>> And as discussed before policy disagrees with reality in this. > >> > >> Would you please elaborate ? > > > > Goswin likely refers to this thread: Buildd & binary-indep > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/09/msg00590.html > > Message-id: <20100924204433.GA4714@apache.rbscorp.ru> > > > > > > Best regards > > > > David Kalnischkies > > And in short: > > Buildds install only Build-Depends but not Build-Depends-Indep but still > call the "build" target. In reality the "build" target must work with > only Build-Depends installed contrary to what policy says. I do hope this mess can be sorted out after squeeze is released. Mandating build-arch and build-indep would be a good thing, IMHO. It's not the buildd software that can change this though--the actual sticking point is dpkg-buildpackage, which is used by sbuild. sbuild is actually perfectly capable of installing Build-Depends-Indep and removing Build-Conflicts-Indep when invoked with the -A (build arch-all) option, but there are no buildds building arch-indep packages yet. If we ever throw away uploaded binaries and build everything on buildds, this would then be useful. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Description: Digital signature