On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 08:57:56PM -0000, Adam Conrad wrote: > libc6-dev is in build-essential, so no buildd will ever be without it. > That said, Steve's suggestion still looks pretty darned hideous to me, > and it's likely better either for Ubuntu to just be carrying a small > build-dep diff for now, or for us to evaluate the value of moving > dietlibc to main.
Well, an alternative might be dietlibc-dev | libc-dev; libc-dev is a virtual package provided by the build-essential -dev package on each arch. > (Note also that the "dietlibc-dev | libc6-dev" build-dep would never do > what you want in Debian since, as mentioned, libc6-dev is already > installed on all the buildds) Ah, right, there is that... > As a side note, I could very easily implement [derivative] and > [!derivative] support in sbuild, but while it would work in Ubuntu, > getting it accepted (and, more painfully, rolled out to every buildd) in > Debian might be tougher. :/ In practice, Debian wouldn't have to support this, because it would just look like an unknown architecture to the Debian buildds. But in the meantime, I'll just plan to upload re-adding the Ubuntu delta that was dropped. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- FTBFS in latest archive rebuild test https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/247678 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
