Hello, On Sun 04 Nov 2018 at 12:38AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > Maybe the relevant paragraph in policy is this one instead: > > If build-time dependencies are specified, it must be possible to build > the package and produce working binaries on a system with only > essential and build-essential packages installed and also those > required to satisfy the build-time relationships (including any > implied relationships). > > To follow with the previous example, does this paragraph imply that if > you call automake by "automake" and you build-depend on automake-1.11 > then you should use a build-conflict? > > I don't think so, because the "with only [...]" part suggests the > completely minimal chroot approach to building packages. Actually, I think this paragraph *does* entail that you should use Build-Conflicts, if we consider Build-Conflicts to be included in "build-time dependencies" (out of context, ISTM we should). In your case, before the package added Build-Conflicts, it was not possible to build the package when essential and build-essential were installed, and the build-time dependencies specified by the package were satisfied. So this requirement was being violated. Once Build-Conflicts was added, the package no longer violated this requirement. That's because satisfying the build-time dependencies means removing automake. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature