* Joachim Breitner (nome...@debian.org) [110813 16:05]: > Hi, > > just a minor note: > > Am Samstag, den 13.08.2011, 13:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Barth: > > To mark such packages and to be able to decide when to re-schedule the > > build, all binary-packages get the additional header > > Build-Depends: minmal package_version .... > > injected, so that one could see later on that this was a partial build > > and reschedule a new build when newly upcoming packages allow more > > binary packages to be built, or all build-dependencies are available > > and we could do a clean full build. > > This seems to be an unfortunate choice of a field name, as it has > different semantics than other Build-Depends fields. Why not > "Built-With:"?
As said - names are just names now, and I assume them to change till implementation. (But if, I think "Build-With" is better.) > Also, this might be useful independently from your feature, and in all > package, and is similar to what dh-buildinfo provides. My proposal isn't restricted to the package required to bootstrapping. However, if they make bootstrapping way easier, that's the use case why we should invest the effort. I see more usage in other areas than only bootstrapping; that's the reason why I tried to make it a bit more generic. Andi -- 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/20110813142636.gv15...@mails.so.argh.org
