On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 05:40:58PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Rene Engelhard <r...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Shouldn't checking if Build-Depends are satisfiable in stable be enough? > > > And if it doesn't build that way, I'd say there's a bug in the package > > > anyways, because it should bump some build dependencies. > > > > build-deps are not necessarily runtime deps. Especially if > > stuff changed in the fs or for policy reasons and that is not reflected in > > the build-deps because the change is not in the build-deps. > > The runtime dependencies should either be based on the versions of the > packages that were compiled against (in which case they should be correct > automaticall) or they will be based on some specific features (EG a new > version of a package containing /bin/foo adds a new command-line option > to /bin/foo) in which case an explicit versioned dependency should be > sufficient (failure to do so would be a bug in any case). It should not be > THAT difficult to make a back-port build daemon refrain from building > packages if the runtime dependencies can never be satisfied.
But runtime dependencies can be the result of shlibs bumps, where the runtime dependency will be different depending on the build-dep version used at build time. So the selection should be done *after* having tried at least once to build a package that has all its build-deps satisfiable. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
