Re: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
> I strongly agree with the proposal.
Nice to have you on the boat, too :-)
> I disagree with Roman's suggestion that we should remove the Arch-
> versions because they'd not be used often. I think it important that
> the resulting scheme be orthogonal. It should also parallel the
> `binary-*' targets in debian/rules.
The current fields are as (un-)orthogonal as the dpkg-buildpackage
options are: You can use -B to build without Arch: all packages, or
you can build all packages.
I see your point, and I can live with the Arch- variants if a majority
wants them. But I still think they just make more work, both for
maintainers who have to define them, and for tools which read source
dependencies. There's no (official) possibility to build only the
Arch: all packages, and this also doesn't make much sense in most
cases.
> 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. We can supply a list of example packages, but we should
> explicitly state that it's only an example which was `true at the time
> of writing'.
This seems like the footnote idea...
> 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.
This looks like an important point. Anybody against it?
> 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.
Ok, this explicitly says what's the intention of source dependencies.
It's correct that this hasn't been said in a formal way yet. For my
part, we can add it, too.
Roman
Reply to: