On Tue, Oct 26, 1999 at 09:52:09AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > At 00:14 +0100 1999-10-26, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > >Just a question which I haven't thoroughly investigated yet: > > > > > >I'm about to add #41232 (source dependencies) to the next policy > > >version. But will this break existing tools? In particular, will the > > >dpkg* tools yet be able to build a package using a Source-Depends: > > >field, or will they die? If the latter, then we need a dpkg NMU > > >(Wichert? Ben?) before this can be placed in policy. > > > > wtf? when did the proposal change to "Source-Depends:"? there's no > > evidence of that in the logs. > > Sorry, I was doing things from memory. The proposal says: > > + <p> > + This is done using the <tt>Build-Depends</tt>, > + <tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt>, <tt>Build-Conflicts</tt>, and > + <tt>Build-Conflicts-Indep</tt> control file fields. > + </p>
Ok, this is what I have as recognized fields in the current dpkg CVS. The wording in that new proposal for bug #41232 through me for a loop. Anyway, all that is left to be done for dpkg is have dpkg-buildpackage (and possibly dpkg-source?) do something when the build depends aren't satisfied. Just so I don't have to go looking all over creation, what was the general consensus on how dpkg-* scripts should handle and react to these fields? Ben
