Hi pabs, Quoting Paul Wise (2016-12-24 02:39:35) > On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 15:01 +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > this has the disadvantage of always pulling in the build-essential package. > For systems with build-essential already installed, that method would be > simpler and better IMO. theoretically, one should be able to set the apt configuration value APT::Build-Essential to something other than build-essential or the empty list. Unfortunately, due to a bug in apt this is currently not possible DonKult is working on it, though. Once this is fixed, we can used the "apt-get build-dep" approach without installing build-essential. > > This has the disadvantage that it installs a meta-package on the user's > > system. > > You could `dpkg --purge` it afterwards to avoid this. Right. > > We'll be using apt's EDSP interface. > > What are the apt version constraints for that? > > It would be great if this worked for apt from wheezy and later. The EDSP interface got introduced in 0.8.16~exp2 but there were multiple changes and fixes since then, so one would have to experiment to see where this solution works. > > What do you think? > > I'd really like to see this functionality integrated into apt but your > workaround sounds good. > > It is a bit too late for this work to reach stretch and I'd like to do > a last-minute upload to finalise cats for stretch, so please work on > this in the wip/install branch for now. Cool, thanks! > I'm also not sure if apt-satisfy functionality should be in apt or devscripts > or check-all-the-things or elsewhere? Ideally, we'd really get an "apt satisfy" command. But I think the best short term solution would be to have the APT::Build-Essential variable fixed and then use "apt-get build-dep". Thanks! cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature