Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2014-06-28 19:09:32) > Quoting Niko Tyni (2014-06-28 09:03:08) >> Perhaps something like this (untested) could work? >> >> Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.40), >> libmodule-build-perl >> >> (The unversioned dependency would guarantee either a perl version with >> the bundled M::B, or a separate package. The versioned alternative >> would guarantee that the M::B version is new enough.) >> >> I suppose we'll have to teach lintian new tricks too at some point... > > Reading your original suggestion again, I realize it does indeed work > - also for my pedantic view: An additional detail I forgot to take > into account is that fallback build-dependencies are ignored on > official build daemons where deterministic resolving is important. > > Sorry if you felt this thread was too long - and thanks for opening my > eyes to a more compact way of expressing this kind of issue than I'd > come up with.
Hmm, I am getting doubts again... Niko's declaration, with Gregor's correction, is this: Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), libmodule-build-perl That declaration relies on the assumption that any system with a new enough perl will also have a new enough libmodule-build-perl - either provided by perl(-modules) or standalone. Is that safe to assume? I believe this more strict declaration covers that cornercase: Build-Depends: perl (>= 5.17.1~) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000), libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.400000) | perl (<< 5.21~) Both those two declarations need two parts, so none of them can currently be handled my Config::Model, as I understand it. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature