Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
- To: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
- From: Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 22:04:12 -0500
- Message-id: <19990715220412.B31254@molehole>
- Reply-to: Steve Greenland <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <19990715105141.F27568@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid>; from Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho on Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 10:51:42AM +0300
- References: <19990713221921.S29829@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <19990714213222.A29530@molehole> <19990715105141.F27568@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid>
On 15-Jul-99, 02:51 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:32:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I realize that these would be in the first stanza of the control
> > file, and therefore don't technically conflict with the binary
> > Depends/Conflicts fields, but I think it's going to lead to a lot
> > of confusion, particularly for new maintainers.
> Here we have a conflict between your sense of aesthetics and mine - I'm a
> minimalist, when it comes to designing interfaces. I doubt we'll be able to
> agree on this one ;-)
Actually, I tend to agree with aesthetically :-). But sometimes
usability requirements exceed aesthetic desires.
> In my opinion Depends is conceptually the same field in both build-time
> dependencies and in ordinary dependencies. Their syntax is the same, and
> their semantics is almost the same.
> In fact, the biggest problem I had with previous proposals, when I looked at
> the archives, was that they invented a new base field. We don't name the
> Section/Priority fields Src-Section or Src-Priority, either.
Hmmm. I tend to think of the first stanza in debian/control as the
"global" stanza, and the rest as "per package". Therefore, the use
of Section/Priority is entirely consistent -- default in the first
stanza, overrides where necessary. Thus, having "Depends" in the global
stanza strikes me as confusing, because there is no connection with the
"Depends" in the rest of the file.
You, OTOH, apparently tend to think of the first as "source", the rest
as "binary"; thus no confusion about "Depends". I can't argue that's a
wrong view, either; when I consider it that way, it makes sense.
> And as to new maintainers, I've seen a few posts in -mentors where people
> ask about simple Unix commands (in the context of packaging, of course).
> They Just Will Have To Learn(tm), as we all did.
Yeah, of course. But this strikes me as "Well, if you type 'ls' in
/usr/local/src, it does this, but if you do it in /usr/bin, it does
something else." Perhaps an exageration, but we have enough problems as
> > Why not name them Src-Depends, Src-Indep-Depends, etc.
> I might be persuaded to use Build-Depends or Source-Depends etc, but
> Src-Depends is IMHO Just Too Ugly(tm).
Ugly is right. What jerk came up with Src-Depends? :-) "Build-Depends"
strikes me as the most accurate and descriptive.
Anyway, go with the flow. If everybody else (or most) are comfortable
with Depends, Conflicts, etc., stick with them. (But I may track
questions in debian-mentor, and come back later with "I told you so!")