On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> Guillem Jover:
> > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”?
> > 
> > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've
> > found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of transitively
> > required packages) slightly confusing, precisely because the first
> > thing that comes to mind with environment is the variable space.
> > 
> > Perhaps we should consider renaming that one? Say Build-Packages (but
> > that might be confusing), Build-Depends-Used, or something else? We
> > also already have a Built-Using field too (although for source
> > packages not binary ones, with a name I've also found slightly
> > confusing as being too generic).
> Ok. What about “Environment” for the variables,

I'm not sure if it'd be better to be explicit about this being a build
thing, and not just a random environment. Are you worried about confusion
with the previous usage of the field with the same name?

> and “Installed-Build-Depends” for the list of packages?

I asked for more suggestions on #debian-dpkg, and Johannes Schauer
suggested Transitive-Build-Depends, which is something I had in mind
too (that or «Recursive-»), but kind of softly discarded in trying to
have a consistently namespaced «Build-» field name. :) Some of the
reasons Johannes put forward are that this name is better because it
clearly describes what's the exact purpose of the field, and gives
no room for misinterpretation. And if we had to change the algorithm
we could just use a new name. All of which I concur with.

(BTW I also realized that I don't think we are including «Essential:yes»
packages in that set, and we should.)


Reproducible-builds mailing list

Reply via email to