Re: Bug#374029: Fixing inconsisten and unusefull Build-Depends/Conflicts definition
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:08:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Policy says Build-Depends-Indep must be installed for the build
> target, which sbuild calls. But sbuild does not install
> Build-Depends-Indep. Same goes for dpkg-checkbuildep -B, it does not
> test for Build-Depends-Indep while build will always be called.
>
> At a minimum policy has to reflect that anything already needed for
> the build target is in Build-Depends while only the actual *-indep
> targets and binary require Build-Depends-Indep.
Right. I didn't look at it that way.
> > 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.
>
> The idea is to improve sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage, debuild, pbuilder,
> cowbuilder, lvmbuilder, .... with a simple change. I would hardly call
> adding an (two) extra build relationship field jumping through
> hoops.
For clarity, with the above I didn't mean that this change involves
"jumping through hoops" -- only that a hypothetical change which is done
only to accomodate someone's aestethical feelings would be. I didn't
really oppose this particular change (though I didn't see a good reason
to do it -- now I do :-)
Sorry I didn't make that any clearer.
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: