Re: again: inconsistency at the cmxa level
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 08:20:33PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 01:04:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> The consensus on Build-Depends has always been that they should be
> >> deterministic and Build-Depends on provided packages are generaly not.
> >
> > Well, the way we do it, there can be only one package that provides said
> > virtual package, so the autobuilders could perfectly install it if they
> > weren't so broken. But then elmo told me "this is the way it is and it will
> > not be fixed" over 2 years ago now, so i have little hope of the autobuilders
> > doing the sensible thing.
> >
> >> Since the apt team does not seem to accept the trivial patch for the
> >> problem with uniqe provides you have to avoid them. That means
> >
> > Nope, it works fine, is an elegant solution to a real problem, and since there
> > is an upgrade each year only or so, the autobuilder maintainer can fix it by
> > hand in their control file or whatever.
>
> No, the autobuilders (sbuild) is realy not to blame for unique
> provides. It is an apt-get bug.
Ok.
> >> providing a dummy package instead of Provides or Build-Depending on
> >> the actual package.
> >
> > No, this is ugly. Why is it that people always prefer ugly workarounds over
> > real fixes ?
>
> Because we want packages to build now and get sarge released instead
> of fighting for another 2 years with elmo and keybuk. As you said:
> "this is the way it is and it will not be fixed"
Well, elmo told me this two years ago, so ...
> Even if you get things fixed the fix would probably not make it into
> sarge and the bug would still remain there.
But i will continue to have the ocaml-3.08 and co provides used as
build-dependencies.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: