Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 05:01:48PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I strongly agree with the proposal. If you still need seconds, count
> me as one.
No, I don't, but thanks anyway :-)
> I therefore suggest the following list
> Build-Depends
> Build-Depends-Indep
> Build-Depends-Arch
> Build-Conflicts
> Build-Conflicts-Indep
> Build-Conflicts-Arch
> where debian/rules binary-foo (where foo is indep or arch) requires
> both the -Foo and plain Depends and Conflicts forms to be satisfied,
> and debian/rules binary requires all six to be satisfied.
I would like to use this suggestion. Comments?
> I think that instead the formulation about `compile and link a trivial
> C or C++ program and put it in a Debian package' should be the
> defining one.
Sounds good. Actually, that was what I had originally in mind. If there
are no objections, I'll make this part of my proposal (seconders: I need
your comments!).
> I think that texinfo shouldn't be there.
Agreed.
> Build-time dependencies must specify version number(s) of package(s)
> if the version in the current Debian stable distribution is not
> adequate. If this is necessary usually a >= dependency should be
> used.
>
> It is a bug if, after unpacking the source package on a system
> running the current stable distribution, and satisfying the source
> dependencies (including the implied dependencies), you cannot build
> the package and produce a working binary package suitable for
> installation into the binary distribution corresponding to the source
> distribution which contained the source package.
I see the point of this suggestion, but I'm not sure the wording is
wise. We can't expect to be able to compile the unstable distribution
while satisfying build dependencies with packages in the stable
distribution (think of Gnome in potato or a libc upgrade, for example).
Your suggestion would require us to put in build-time dependencies which
would become redundant the minute we release!
No, I'd like to use something like this: Every package is meant for a
particular distribution (slink, potato, woody, ...), and a package must
be buildable in that distribution, when dependencies are satisfied.
Comments?
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
(Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
Reply to: