Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:49:21PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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 ?
I think it is. What is missing is a flag for dpkg-checkbuilddeps (and dpkg-buildpackage)
to enforce that behaviour, so that users can rebuild packages in the predictable way
without using a buildd.
Imagine a large red swirl here.