On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 01:24:26PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:03:10PM +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > Just a quick update to confirm that this bug still exists. See: #525935 > > Thanks. We still haven't yet had any proposed patches to the > dependency resolver to correctly support alternative build dependencies. > Currently support is extremely poor. This is partly because the > whole idea of alternative build-deps would result in non-deterministic > builds.
Perhaps a solution would be for packages to specify two Build-Depends fields: A- One that defines which dependencies are essential for build to work B- One that defines which dependencies are expected to be present in official builds Then maintainers and buildds must satisfy B, while backporters can satisfy A and try to satisfy as much as possible from B. -- Robert Millan The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org