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

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

Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:

> 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.

No problem and I agree with you both in principle (jumping through
hoops is bad) and in this case (this is not jumping through
hoops). That is what discussing is for. :)


Reply to: