Bug#968226: Move documentation of Build-Depends alternative selection out of footnote
On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 10:16:12AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:17:04PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 at 19:11:38 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I also reworded the paragraph about backports to hopefully address
> > > Holger's reading. It's just trying to say that backports uses aptitude in
> > > the normal way and doesn't do anything special to transform the
> > > alternative.
>
> yup, it's better, thanks.
>
> > It's perhaps worth mentioning that experimental does something similar
> > (it has used the aptitude and aspcud resolvers at various times, but
> > I'm not sure which one is currently in use).
>
> I see.
>
> I think my biggest concern is actually not how it's described but rather
> why/that it is different at all (and then wondering whether it will stay
> that way...)
Experimental is different because it is an incomplete distribution,
which needs to default to using packages from unstable except if
build-depends explicitly lists versions that are only available in
experimental.
When I set up the first experimental autobuilder back in the day, I
hacked the sbuild resolver (it had its own resolver at the time) to
explicitly tell apt which packages to pull from experimental, rather
than doing something like "-t experimental" or some such.
I wrote
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00007.html to
-devel-announce at the time; but since I haven't been involved with
buildd work in a while, I can't really say whether it's still accurate
or relevant today.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
Reply to: