Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 12:23:50AM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote: So given how few packages we are talking about, would it be worth the buildds using all packages specified in both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep and phasing out Build-Depends-Indep? I modified apt's build earlier this week to work in split mode. I'll also be making certain dpkg does as well. Please don't phase it out. Great! What do you mean by split mode, though, and does this mean that we must have something like debian/rules -q build-arch returning a meaningful value? Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:20:49PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: Great! What do you mean by split mode, though, and does this mean that we must have something like debian/rules -q build-arch returning a meaningful value? No, it means that build-indep is built during the binary-indep rule(which build deps on). binary: binary-arch binary-indep binary-arch: apt libapt-pkg-dev apt-utils binary-indep: apt-doc libapt-pkg-doc apt: build libapt-pkg-dev: build apt-utils: build apt-doc: build-doc libapt-pkg-doc: build-doc But if you have a Build-Depends-Indep field containing packages which are needed for the build-indep target, then the autobuilders will fail, as they first run the build target and then the binary-arch target. So unless dpkg and the autobuilders are going to consider changing to support the originally-intended setup, there is no point maintaining this distinction in policy. Of course, there is no problem with individual packages doing this; it causes no harm. Julian -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/ Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/ Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Julian Gilbey wrote: binary: binary-arch binary-indep binary-arch: apt libapt-pkg-dev apt-utils binary-indep: apt-doc libapt-pkg-doc apt: build libapt-pkg-dev: build apt-utils: build apt-doc: build-doc libapt-pkg-doc: build-doc But if you have a Build-Depends-Indep field containing packages which are needed for the build-indep target, then the autobuilders will fail, as they first run the build target and then the binary-arch target. So unless dpkg and the autobuilders are going to consider changing to support the originally-intended setup, there is no point maintaining this distinction in policy. Of course, there is no problem with individual packages doing this; it causes no harm. No, they won't. The apt build and binary-arch targets don't need any packages that are listed in Build-Depends-Indep(as I have designed). Please think again, you are reading what I pasted wrong.
