Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> If this is the case, then I think lintian should be updated to tell
> people this. It is in fact lintian that have made me do this kind
> of change for all the Arch: all packages that I maintain.
>
> Please CC me as I'm not on this list anymore if you have comments
> on my post.
>
> Regards,
>
> // Ola
>
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2006 at 07:42:42PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>> Dear fellow developers,
>>
>>
>> Section 7.6[1] is an often misunderstood/forgotten part of the Policy
>> that explains how Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep are used to
>> build a package. Here is almost a copy&paste:
>>
>> The dependencies and conflicts they define must be satisfied
>> in order to invoke the targets in debian/rules, as follows:
>>
>> The Build-Depends and Build-Conflicts fields must be satisfied
>> when any of the following targets is invoked:
>> build, clean, binary, binary-arch, build-arch,
>> build-indep, binary-indep.ยท
>>
>> The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields
>> must be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked:
>> build, build-indep, binary and binary-indep.
>>
>>
>> In particular, it means that having cdbs, yada, dbs, dh-make-php and
>> other packaging helpers that are included from your debian/rules in
>> B-D-I is wrong, and that having debhelper in B-D-I is wrong as soon as
>> you use dh_clean in your clean target.
There is also the issue of policy being wrong (or buildds if you like).
Policy says *-Indep must be satisfied for "build" but is ignored when
building only arch packages (-B option) despide "build" being called.
Build-Depends-Indep can only be used for packages that are used
exclusively by build-indep (if build does NOT call that) and/or
binary-indep.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
