FYI, the message belows makes me more confident about the fact that the HDF5 alternatives introduced in liboctave-dev will not lead to broken builds on build daemons.
--- Begin Message ---
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, 687001@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#687001: ITP: optional-dev -- fake (empty) dev package
- From: Arno Töll <arno@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:33:45 +0200
- Message-id: <504B2D19.20009@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <504B26B5.4050008@debian.org>
- References: <201209081708.34882.onlyjob@member.fsf.org> <504B26B5.4050008@debian.org>
Hi, On 08.09.2012 13:06, Simon McVittie wrote: > It would perhaps make more sense if there was a way for the libchamplain > maintainer to nominate excluded architectures, so empathy could say > something like: > > Build-Depends: libchamplain-...-dev | > champlain-unavailable-on-this-arch > As Adam previously said: buildds do not resolve alternatives. They use the first dependency or fail to build from source if it isn't available. Dmitry's proposal has the same problem. Thus, any "Build-Depends: A | B" does not work for buildds if A is not installable. The rationale is, that builds should unconditionally result in the same binary package (I guess). -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36DAttachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
-- .''`. Sébastien Villemot : :' : Debian Maintainer `. `' http://www.dynare.org/sebastien `- GPG Key: 4096R/381A7594
Attachment:
pgpZuA9SK5Cnp.pgp
Description: PGP signature