[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#374029: Fixing inconsisten and unusefull Build-Depends/Conflicts definition

On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:52:01PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
> > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
> >> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > Sbuild explicitely, by design, only looks at build-depends. So in order
> >> > for build-depends to be useful at this time if you want a package to
> >> > build, you need to list mostly everything in build-depends right now
> >> > anyway.
> >> 
> >> Isn't it sbuild's job to comply with policy, not the other way round?
> >
> > Isn't it policy's job to reflect best current practice, not dictate it?
> Whenever this has been asked in the past, sbuild has simply declared
> "this is how I want to do it."  I have no idea why.

The only reason why we need sbuild in the first place is that we want to
build architecture-dependent packages on all architectures, not just the
one the original developer uploaded a package for.

For that, we need to install build-dependencies. We don't explicitely
need all build-dependencies; we don't care about those that don't get
used in a "dpkg-buildpackage -B" run, but we do need all those that do.
Thus, there is a need for a split between build-dependencies that are
needed to build architecture-dependent packages, and build-dependencies
that are needed to build architecture-independent packages.

Policy currently tries to explain that without explicitly mentioning the
above call. I think it does so properly, but that may not be the
case--and I'm not a native English speaker, so that may be playing with
me a bit, too.

However, since all this was invented and written precisely to accomodate
sbuild, it would be madness to suddenly change everything because it
seems more aesthetic (or so), and then require that sbuil jump through
hoops to accomodate the aestethic feelings of one particular developer.
That would be the world upside-down.

> If there is no technical reason for sbuild to behave this way, and if
> it does not in fact conform to policy, how about making it do the
> right thing?

It does do the right thing.

Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: