On 2020-10-16 14:43, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
Hi,
Il 16/10/20 02:53, Drew Parsons ha scritto:
Would it make sense to use the Built-Using [1] header?
...
[1]
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#additional-source-packages-used-to-build-the-binary-built-using
The precise web page you are linking hints that this use of Built-Using
would be improper:
"This field should be used only when there are license or DFSG
requirements to retain the referenced source packages. It should not be
added solely as a way to locate packages that need to be rebuilt against
newer versions of their build dependencies".
Ah yes, I had a feeling there were more reasons to not prefer this
method!
That said, I forgot to mention that the Python versions Boost is
compiled against is also tracked in the package names provided by
libboost-python1.71.0, which are currently libboost-python1.71.0-py38
and libboost-python1.71-py39.
Is this better? More in general, there can be dozens of ways to
advertise which Python versions are used to build Boost.Python, but it
is not clear to me how this information should be consumed.
That sounds like a useful approach.
The ecflow build could access the provided versions via
dpkg -s libboost-python${BOOST_VERSION} | grep Provides