On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 12:03:39AM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 12.11.2014 22:45, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >> Should I list them all in the build-deps? If yes, what's the complete
> >> list?
>
> > It should be libc6-dev[linux-any !alpha !ia64] | libc6.1-dev [alpha ia64] |
> > libc0.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [kfreebsd-any] | libc0.3 (2.19-12~) [hurd-any]
>
> Please double-check:
>
> Build-Depends:
> # glibc static-nss #754813, 2.19..2.19-11, -12 is ok
> libc6-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [linux-any !alpha !ia64] |
> libc6-dev (<< 2.19) [linux-any !alpha !ia64] |
> libc6.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [alpha ia64] |
> libc6.1-dev (<< 2.19) [alpha ia64] |
> libc0.1-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [kfreebsd-any] |
> libc0.1-dev (<< 2.19) [kfreebsd-any] |
> libc0.3-dev (>> 2.19-12~) [hurd-any] |
> libc0.3-dev (<< 2.19) [hurd-any],
That looks lok.
> Since this is all alternatives, is it really necessary to list the [arch]
> names? I mean, just list of pkgs with versions should be enough I think,
> each arch will pick the right name, no?
sbuild only considers the first alternative, so it won't work.
Alternatively I think I have found a better solution.
libc{0.1,0.3,6,6.1}-dev strictly depends on libc-dev-bin, so if you
build-depends on libc-dev-bin (>> 2.19-12~) | libc-dev-bin (<< 2.19),
the libcX-dev package will also get the same version.
Aurelien
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B
aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141112220123.gw24...@hall.aurel32.net
