On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 03:16:00PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> there is a common practise with build dependencies that i consider
> "abuse", although it is described in best-packaging-practises.
>
> http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#BINARYCOMPAT
>
> "And start recompiling every package that is linked against libfooX
> against the libfooX-dev, updating the Build-Depends accordingly (to
> build-depend on a version greater than the newly created libfooX-dev)."
> This common practise makes package backporting more work.
> For the packages i backported to woody i often had to drop some "fixed"
> build dependency and replace it with the old value.
> IMHO we should use other means to tell the autobuilders which packages
> they should use for building than build-dependencies.
[...]
> All we would need is to teach autobuilders not to use a certain version
> of a package any more. At minimum a package maintainer should undo the
> dependency as soon as all architectures are fixed.
Weren't the Build-Depends introduced *exactly* for this purpose, i.e.
to make the autobuilders (and NMUers) use the correct packages? (I do
not know, I was not around then.)
cu andreas
