Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps
Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"):
> I agree that these do serve a useful purpose for these uses, and that
> ease of reuse backporting and other types of porting are important.
> However, there is no way to know which of those alternatives applies
> to which suite. All of them are potentially going to be used for a
> build in unstable, and it's this uncertainty which could potentially
> lead to inconsistent builds.
Well then some mechanism needs to exist to make it predictable. The
current arrangement, where buildds always use the first alternative,
seems like a pretty simple one. Is it not adequate ?