Bug#218893: Proposal: debian/rules.version file [Fix for the build-arch problem]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:49:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:09:46PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > What are the real benefits from having build-arch and build-indep?
> > > Are there really so many packages which would benefit from having them?
[...]
> For the same reason I would like to see the real benefits from
> changing the format of debian/rules.
Did you miss the original subject of the thread? The benefit of the
proposal is to make the split Build-Depends-(Indep) useful at all[1].
Currently it is not, because the autobuilders invoke the build target,
which in turn invokes build-arch and build-indep, so you have to put
anything needed for building in Build-Depends, as the autobuilders
will uselessly build the build-indep target.
The -indep targets can be rather expensive, executing tex and other
stuff and requiing installing rather big packages.
I might be misunderstanding you, and you are actually asking for a
list of packages that would benefit from the proposal. - I don't think
that is easy to generate, as it requires checking debian/rules by
hand, we have just libtool as example.
cu andreas
[1] Currently this is only possible with ugliness like making
build-indep an empty target and doing the actual expensive work in
binary-indep, or ignoring policy's recommendation to make build depend
on build-arch and build-indep.
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
Reply to: