Re: Build-Depends and virtual packages
On Tue, April 24, 2007 15:42, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I have results I will put online as soon as I convert them in a better
>> format than a simple text list, but if you have comments on what to do
>> with this list, they are more than welcome.
>
> In the general case: nothing. It is *not* correct to turn this into an
> alternative Build-Depends: real-package | virtual package, because sbuild
> will only look at the first branch of any or'ed build-dep. If the virtual
> package is the stable name for the -dev interface, that's what packages
> should be build-depending on.
Sure, don't misunderstand me, I'm not asking for modifying all these
packages and I certainly have no intention of filing 600+ bugs for that
:). It's only something I noticed and thought it might be interesting to
have a look at.
I totally agree with the build-depend on the stable name of the -dev
interface. However, sometimes it looks a bit strange or seems to lack some
information. Say libpng12-dev, for which there are 3 different virtual
packages (libpng-dev, libpng3-dev, libpng12-0-dev). Or libz-dev, for which
I couldn't find any documentation, even in the zlib source package, apart
from the fact that zlib1g-dev provides it. And what is the point in
build-depending on c++-compiler ?
> The reason depending on a virtual package without first listing a real
> package is considered a bug is that it gives undefined behavior in the
> selection of a package when there is more than one package providing the
> named virtual package. But there are cases where depending on the virtual
> package alone is still correct -- e.g., apt Provides:
> libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6-3.11, which is the right virtual package to depend on
> when using libapt. The same applies to build-deps on virtual packages,
> which normally are provided by only one real package at a time in a given
> suite.
I'm not saying it's bad, only bringing the subject to see if anyone finds
something interesting in it. Considering this sort of thing gives a
warning with lintian, I might as well not keep it for myself.
In any case, I will try to have these checks run daily, even if as purely
informative data.
Regis
Reply to: