Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:23:50AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > > So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the
> > > buildds using all packages specified in both Build-Depends and
> > > Build-Depends-Indep and phasing out Build-Depends-Indep?
> >
> > I modified apt's build earlier this week to work in split mode. I'll also be
> > making certain dpkg does as well. Please don't phase it out.
>
> Great! What do you mean by "split mode", though, and does this mean
> that we must have something like "debian/rules -q build-arch"
> returning a meaningful value?
No, it means that build-indep is built during the binary-indep rule(which
build deps on).
binary: binary-arch binary-indep
binary-arch: apt libapt-pkg-dev apt-utils
binary-indep: apt-doc libapt-pkg-doc
apt: build
libapt-pkg-dev: build
apt-utils: build
apt-doc: build-doc
libapt-pkg-doc: build-doc
Reply to: