Re: Use of the Build-Conflicts field
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 21:20:48 +0800
- From: Paul Wise <pabs@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Use of the Build-Conflicts field
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 12:00 PM Sean Whitton wrote:
> Use of the Build-Conflicts field is currently mostly optional, but Ian
> Jackson and I have been working on text for Debian Policy that would
> require its use in certain cases. See #824495 for the discussion.
Personally, the main RC use-case I can think of for such a field is
where the recursive chain of Build-Depends reaches at some point a set
of alternative dependencies and one of them causes an FTBFS or other
breakage in the package and so you want to make apt choose the other
Any other use-cases imply a non-minimal chroot, which isn't our
standard build environment so I don't think they should be RC.
Other folks have already mentioned the use-case of avoiding optional
dependencies being installed affecting the reproducibility of the
Obviously it is a good idea to declare all of the conflicts (optional
deps, FTBFS) to avoid frustration during development though.
I think QA efforts like the buildd-from-hell idea could help
automatically find such issues, if that ever happens.