Bug#41232: Bug #41232: [AMENDMENT 1999-07-23] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
The discussion period for this amendment ended on Friday, the 6th of
August, 1999. However, we don't yet have a consensus. We do seem to be
on the right track, though, so I'd like us to grant the one-time one-week
extension to this discussion period. Thus the discussion should end on
Friday, the 13th of this month. If this is not acceptable, the amendment
should be marked as rejected.
To concentrate the remaining discussion on the matters at hand, I'll
summarise the points of disagreement and add my comments.
* Are Build-Conflicts really necessary?
- they appear to be, reading the current list
of build-dependencies used by sbuild.
* Do we need to conditionalize the build dependencies based
on architectures?
- Joel Klecker and Marcus Brinkmann seem to think so.
I'm not convinced yet.
- This would complicate the syntax
* If so, what syntax should we use?
- My choice would be the "package (>= 42 i386)" syntax,
as it's the least intrusive choice.
* Should we use four fields or six fields?
- In my opinion the four-field choice offers no real
advantages (I've discussed my position in detail earlier)
* When are versioned dependencies necessary?
- Ian Jackson wants to allow the "current stable" as
the base where versioned dependencies are not
necessary
- I've stated my position earlier: use versioned dependencies
every time the non-versioned dependencies would introduce
a possibility of a broken build, regardless of releases.
I'd like us to reach a consensus on these points during the week we have
left. If we can't, the proposal should be marked rejected. (And possibly
a new, revised proposal sent out, if necessary.)
I will be away for a few days starting from later today (Sat).
--
%%% 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: