[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

source dependencies



Every week or two, somebody says "we need source dependencies."
I don't have a proposal to present on how it should be done, but
it doesn't seem like it should be too hard.

The control file would need a new field Source-Depends.
This might be propagated to the .dsc file. When a source package is unpacked
with dpkg-source, dpkg-source would check that the binary packages listed
are available. If not, it should either warn the user, or refuse to unpack.
(Probably warn the user, and return an error code.) Or it could be told
how to run a command (like apt) to install the missing packages. 

I think Source-Depends should only list binary packages which are
installed. Or should it be able to list source packages as well?
This should not be needed very often.

There would need to be some way for the Source-Depends field to be
generated. Presumably manual; automatic would be too hard? Most packages
would only need standard tools anyway (make, gcc, g++); a list of
standard tools could be developed. Those tools would not need to be
specified; only particular versions, and packages not normally installed.

Source-Conflicts should not be needed. Source-Recommends
Source-Suggests definately not.

Only dpkg-source should need to be modified. I thought someone said
Klee had developed a dpkg variant that did this already, but I couldn't
find it poking around master.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD              hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org


Reply to: