Hi! [ CCing #400322 for the additional data. ]
On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 20:25:11 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Frans Pop <elen...@planet.nl> (09/02/2010): > > On Tuesday 09 February 2010, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > Frans Pop <elen...@planet.nl> (09/02/2010): > > > > This format is not (yet) allowed by policy: rootskel-gtk > > > > (>=0.05) [!s390] (except for build dependencies) > > > > > > AFAICT, it just works, and not only for Build-Depends. It can't be > > > used for an arch: all package, though, since it gets substituted > > > at build time, so it probably won't do what you would want. > > > > I know that it is going to be allowed in the future and because of > > that I don't doubt that it (mostly?) works. But AFAIK *currently* > > it's not allowed by policy [1], except for build deps. And thus it > > should not yet be used in uploads. Actually checking now, there does not seem to have been any wording proposed yet on #400322, I might try to come up with one. > Oops, indeed. Looks like I forgot about that particular point, thanks > for pointing this out. It looks like I've been taking it granted for > quite some time. Hmm, I also seem to have forgotten about this (I'll call that fair bias :). I was curious anyway about how long this support has been around as I thought it had been long, so did some digging the other day: * Introduced in dpkg 1.10.11 (Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:52:11 -0500) Bug: #170575 * Regression in dpkg 1.10.14 (Fri, 19 Sep 2003 12:29:34 -0500) * Fixed again in dpkg 1.13.17 (Mon, 20 Mar 2006 03:33:03 +0200) Bugs: #252657, #324741, #347819 Also I don't think much tools except for dpkg-dev scripts actually parse the dependency fields in the binary package stanzas in debian/control. So this should supposedly not break stuff (but then I've not checked, etc). > > A reference to an (official) statement from FTP-masters would be. > > I'd rather have -policy@ folks share their mind about it. I guess > updating the Policy to allow limiting non-build-time relationships > (Depends, Recommends, …) to some architectures would be nice to > have. Right. And I don't see why ftp-masters would have a special say on this issue either. > I'm not sure whether warning people about the substitution which > happens at build time[1] would have its place in the Policy since that > could be considered an (dpkg-dev) implementation detail (but that can > cause some headaches). > [1] Meaning an Architecture: all package with Depends: foo [bar] will > have foo, or won't have foo, depending on which architecture it > will be built upon, rather than the conditional Depends stored in > the resulting binary. Yeah, this is something the dpkg scripts should detect and error out on, I've added it to the TODO list (to be pushed). thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100219160021.ga16...@gaara.hadrons.org
