Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense

[Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net>]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:28:17AM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> Hi Julian!
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> > No: if binary-arch depends (in a Makefile sense) on build, then you're
> > not actually "invoking" build, and your make can do what it likes, as
> > long as you only need the Build-Depends packages.  If you make build,
> > then you should require both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep.  I
> > know that's not what the autobuilders yet do, but one day they might
> > check for the existence of the build-arch target, and fall back to a
> > build target if that doesn't exist.  At that point, the distinction
> > will make sense; the way the Build-Depends{,-Indep} fields were
> > originally designed or implemented was fundamentally broken, in that
> > the -Indep fields were useless.
> 
> In that case, the buildds are broken: they don't install
> Build-Depends-Indep, even though they do invoke the clean and build
> targets of debian/rules (through dpkg-buildpackage).  See
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=freesci&ver=0.3.4a-2&arch=alpha&stamp=1043707174&file=log&as=raw
> for an example of this.

Correct.

   Julian

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

        Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
   Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
     Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry