On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 23:26:27 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:05:28AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 22:40:52 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > > > From discussion on IRC earlier this evening, it looks like the most > > > pragmatic approach will be to get the apt and aptitude sbuild > > > resolvers to strip the alternatives (after arch reduction), which > > > will make them behave pretty much exactly like the old internal > > > resolver, but without its bugs. This will leave maintainers free to > > > use alternative dependencies, but like now they will be ignored. > > > What we can do though, is make the use of alternatives configurable > > > in sbuild, so you will be able to make use of them when building for > > > other suites e.g. backports. This will disable the stripping. > > > > > What's the purpose of doing this after arch reduction? > > If you do it before you'd remove any alternative arch-specific deps, > so by doing it after you only remove the alternatives you don't care > about. > I'm still not sure how 'Build-Depends: foo [i386] | bar [amd64]' would make sense (as opposed to making it an 'and'). Looking at the archive it seems coinor-csdp and the gcc packages at least are using something like that, so nevermind.
Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110222233850.gv12...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
