Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007, Kumar Appaiah wrote: Fine by me. But do you think this calls for a bug against those packages which unnecessarily depend on atlas due to this change? I can file wishlists against those, and they surely should not need atlas, as they have been without it earlier. It makes sense, at least as long as we have no way to differentiate the generic build requirement from the build requirement on official Debian buildd. It's still an issue that we need to tackle once but it's so low priority that I never managed to go forward with a proposition. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:40:22AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: It makes sense, at least as long as we have no way to differentiate the generic build requirement from the build requirement on official Debian buildd. Thanks. I shall do so, for those packages which I am concerned about. It's still an issue that we need to tackle once but it's so low priority that I never managed to go forward with a proposition. Well, as long as things are clear, it's fine. We should just ensure that maintainers who depended on the old behaviour (like me) take evasive action to prevent an unneeded dependency. Thanks! Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#457151: closed by Guillem Jover [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Re: Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends)
Dear Guillem, Yes, I'd say those are bugs on the packages. There's no guarantee on what's going to be present on the build environment, except for the build dependency relationships. I shall start filing wishlist bugs against such packages. I have already done so against octave2.9. But I really don't like the justification of the revert, thus I'm inclined to not revert it and close the bug. But I'd like to have the opinions of other dpkg developers first. Agreed, and I've just done so. Thanks for the clarification, and I apologise for the false alarm. :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#457151: dpkg-dev -- should not reorder Build-Depends
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:20:40PM +0530, Kumar Appaiah wrote: As this has caused enough damage already (e.g. octave2.9, numpy etc.) not unnecessarily depend on atlas. Therefore, I chose to file this as serious. Please feel free to downgrade severity if you feel so. I meant octave2.9, numpy _now_ unnecessarily depend on atlas. Sorry for the typo. :-) Kumar -- Kumar Appaiah, 458, Jamuna Hostel, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai - 600 036 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
