Control: unarchive 689062 Control: reopen 689062 Control: unarchive 990073 Control: reopen 990073 Control: reassign -1 dpkg-dev Control: forcemerge -1 990073 689062
On Thu, 2026-09-17 at 22:52:48 +0900, Simon Richter wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.22.22 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: upstream > X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected] > when building packages that have Built-Using or Static-Built-Using fields, > it is a bit cumbersome to gather the required information, and put it in > substvars. Thanks for filing this. It had been filed in the past but those bug reports got closed by Nicolas after uploading dh-builtusing, and I had pending reopening them (but never got to it, or kept forgetting), because I think something like dh-builtusing is a workaround given the restricted list of allowed characters in substvar names, and the verbosity implied with using substvars, those being AFAIR the main reason I never ended up merging magic substvar support, even when I had a prototype for it. > Obviously this will need a few releases to be generally usable, I think using an appropriate versioned build dependency would be enough to start using this, right away. > but I think > it would be nice if > > Built-Using: foo, bar > > was expanded to > > Built-Using: foo (=1), bar (=2) > > substituting the respective Source fields from build dependencies. > > If there is already a version field (e.g. with a substvar), nothing should > be done. I also got a change based on the patch from Nicolas for this, which I need to further modify so that it does not call dpkg-query at all. I'm not sure now why I didn't merge that at the time, perhaps because it still seemed not-ideal. But given that non-versioned packages are invalid values in the output field, I think these would be safe semantics to have, even if we eventually get something better and/or more automatic. (For example a way to declare static building from the depended on package, similar to shlibs control files.) I'll try to get to this for the upcoming release. Thanks, Guillem
