Re: cdbs and Build-Depends-Indep
On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 19:15, James Troup wrote:
> Colin Walters <email@example.com> writes:
> >> If Build-Depends-Indep were
> >> installed to satisfy 'build' their entire raison d'etre would be
> >> voided.
> > The buildds[...]
> invoke 'dpkg-buildpackage -B'.
> > This all goes for dpkg-buildpackage too, of course.
> Fine and dandy; feel free to talk to the dpkg folks. I'm sure you'll
> get somewhere before 2038, if not a year or two sooner.
Sigh...I wish I could just pretend you were joking and laugh, but...
> >> That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's orthogonal to
> >> this bug.
> > I don't think it's orthogonal at all.
> That == "invalidating build-depends-indep's purpose in life" - which
> is orthogonal.
I don't think we're invalidating its purpose; Build-Depends-Indep is
still useful for invoking debian/rules binary-indep.
> As I've said before: Policy is either meant to document current
> practice or it's not. If it is, then it's wrong because the de facto
> implementation of build-depends disagrees with it _and always has
> done_ (or at least, it's not the buildds which have changed). If it's
> not, well...
Well, probably the main reason we haven't hit this before is that most
people don't bother to do a proper arch/indep split in their packages,
and just stuff everything into Build-Depends.