Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
- To: Roman Hodek <Roman.Hodek@informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
- Cc: 41232@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
- From: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi>
- Date: Sun, 1 Aug 1999 15:55:01 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] 19990801155501.D16913@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid>
- Reply-to: Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi>, 41232@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <199907260854.KAA25463@faui22c.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>; from Roman Hodek on Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:54:38AM +0200
- References: <19990713221921.S29829@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <19990723190202.E20487@ugh.jyu.fi.invalid> <14235.13548.129246.607435@anarres.relativity.greenend.org.uk> <199907260854.KAA25463@faui22c.informatik.uni-erlangen.de>
On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:54:38AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> I see your point, and I can live with the Arch- variants if a majority
> wants them.
The majority? There have been, what, probably less than ten people
involved in this discussion. I don't think a majority vote among them
would be of any indication of what majority want.
> But I still think they just make more work, both for
> maintainers who have to define them, and for tools which read source
> dependencies.
The work for the tools is insignificant. For maintainers - well, they
can always use Build-Depends as a catch-all and use it like they would
use it in your model.
Here's how the fields would map to the targets
Six-field:
Build-(Depends|Conflicts): build, binary-arch, binary-indep
Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Arch: binary, binary-arch
Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Indep: binary, binary-indep
Four-field:
Build-(Depends|Conflicts): build, binary, binary-arch, binary-indep
Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Indep: binary, binary-indep
(I just noticed that we must not have build map to anything else than
the plain Build-Depends in either model; as you noted earlier, it would
just make the other fields void of purpose.)
If in the four-field model, a maintainer could say
Build-Depends: foo bar
Build-Depends-Indep: baz
where bar is being needed only for the arch-dependent packages, then in the six-field
model she can say either
Build-Depends: foo bar
Build-Depends-Indep: baz
(the same!) or
Build-Depends: foo
Build-Depends-Arch: bar
Build-Depends-Indep: baz
whichever suits her. Of course, the two-field way in the six-field model
will be deprecated when (if) we allow building only arch-all packages.
Would the six-field model be okay with you in this light?
> > 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?
I would be. I don't like introducing the variable concept of "stable
distribution" in here. I'd more like to use the rule we use with binary
dependencies: use versioned dependency if some version would not be
acceptable, independent of the distributions involved.
--
%%% 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: