Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 07:25:37PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > People have been asking for it, so here it is if any one wants to > > > write the policy for using it. > > > > Write policy around a `little hack' (your words)? Hmm. > > Not sure i what the size of the change has to do with it deserving > policy.
It's not the size, it's the fact that you yourself describe it as a hack. > > > There is no versioning of the Source-Depends either since I didn't > > > think it would be necessary. > > > > You're wrong, they're very necessary. > > Examples please. e.g. libreadlineg2's make_quoted_replacement() was broken (causing segfaults in es and gdb) in << 2.1-4. If es or gdb merely depended on libreadlineg2, people would be free to compile binaries which segfaulted despite the source dependencies being satisfied. Proper constraints would avoid this. > > > All it does is included the Source-Depends field into the .dsc > > > file. This can later be used by apt or dbuild/buildd to verify > > > that all needed packages are installed for building. > > > > sbuild already does this... (with it's own source dependencies > > generated from the dependencies of the binary package(s) of the > > source package and manually added source dependencies). > > This doesn't solve necessary binaries used in the make and build > process does it? Yes it does, as those are added by hand. > And it doesn't help anyone else out...it's useless outside of that > one program. That `one program' compiles 98% of packages for m68k and powerpc with other architectures to come as soon as I get my act together and finish packaging it. I'm not claiming it's a perfect system, and I'm also surely not offering up bits of it as hacks for possible policy inclusion. You mentioned buildd, so I felt obliged to point out it was already doing something different, which worked better than your hack. -- James
