Web lists-archives.com

Re: [yay for broken usage of was: in the Subject header]

On 2018-01-10 22:53, Johannes Schauer wrote:
But unless we want to pull a full Gentoo here and really make the information with which build profile a given binary package was built part of the binary package and thus overhaul all our dependency resolvers, unless the plan is to do that, I don't see why binary packages should contain this information.

Either it is used for dependency resolution and then we should have the field or it isn't and then the field is rather making things like comparing packages with each other difficult. We already accept that the uniqueness of packages
with respect to their name/version/arch only holds within a certain
distribution. But that distribution will also always know with which build
profiles they built all their packages.

Why is it making comparing packages with each other difficult? It's an additional annotation of what the package actually contains. If you upload the set of bootstrap packages and especially if you have multiple intermediate stages, you surely would want to know which packages will need to be rebuilt to the point of not requiring build profiles anymore, no?

At the same time for a stable port the archive can ensure that the build profile was actually the default one (or accept divergences with a conscious decision, like using NEW or BYHAND).

So I don't think it's as black and white wrt full flexibility in dependencies as you paint it. :)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern