Web lists-archives.com

Re: (was: Re: Bug#886238: Please introduce official nosystemd build profile)




Quoting Adrian Bunk (2018-01-09 20:54:31)
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 01:22:33PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:35:30AM -0500, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > > At times, Ubuntu needs to avoid certain build-dependencies because
> > > they would add an unwanted "universe" binary dependency to a "main"
> > > package. In some cases, that is the *only* change Ubuntu makes to the
> > > package. I believe it benefits Debian for Ubuntu and Debian packaging
> > > to be as shared as much as possible.
> > > 
> > > https://launchpad.net/bugs/1734339
> > $64k question: does having to maintain some notion of which build profiles
> > to use for a package (and actually maintaining the build profile upstream)
> > end up being less effort than a couple of lines of patch to remove a
> > dependency?
> We already have plenty of packages that use dpkg-vendor to check for ubuntu
> or raspbian in debian/rules, and adding something similar for build
> dependencies would sound reasonable to me.

Currently, the value of the Build-Depends field is just copied to the final
source package without making modifications. This is in contrast to the Depends
fields of the binary packages in debian/control which can get mangled depending
on their architecture annotations or substvars. What you propose would require
mangling the Build-Depends field at build-time which is a bad idea for several
reasons. Check out the following bugs:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=677474

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=751437

Thanks!

cheers, josch

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature