On Thu, 07 Feb 2013, Joey Hess wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > What I mean is that a changes file for a sourceful upload has > > 'source' (and maybe some real architecture names) in the Architecture > > field. Therefore 'source' cannot be assigned as the name of a real > > architecture. > > Ah, sure. > > However, "source" in Build-Depends could be taken to mean that it > Build-Depends on the source of the package. Which is not currently > supported, but I'm sure everyone stuck maintaining foo-source binary > packages would be happy if it were one day. So perhaps best not to > overload it.
However, if this would get implemented, it would probably end up using the multiarch syntax "foo:source" (at least that seems to be the most logical choice to me). So I don't believe that this would be in conflict with "foo [source]". It might be a bit confusing though to use the same keyword in different situations (and furthermore it should be "foo [any source]" if we don't want the build-dependency to be dropped...). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- 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/20130208073656.gc6...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
