On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> wrote: > Hi, > > This email is a follow up on the thread started January 2013 [1]. In summary: > it seems that the ability to bootstrap Debian from scratch and the requirement > to extend the Build-Depends syntax meet general agreement. > > What is yet to be decided is the concrete format for the Build-Depends syntax > extension. The first proposals suggested a syntax which looked like > > Build-Depends: foo [amd64] <!stage1> I'd prefer Build-Depends-Stage1 if possible. When bootstrap, dpkg only ask for these build-depends while for normal build, dpkg should merge Build-Depends-Stage1 and Build-Depends. > > Which would indicate that the build dependency "foo" would not apply if the > build profile called "stage1" is activated. It was critisized [2] that this > syntax wastes a meta character and thus prohibits future extensions of the > Build-Depends syntax. Therefore the second proposal (finalised at debconf13) > looked like this: > > Build-Depends: foo [amd64] [!profile.stage1] > > The rectangular brackets are reused and a prefixed namespace is used to > indicate that "stage1" is a build profile name. We hoped this would be the > final spec, given the previous discussion, but those brackets also got some > pushback [3] and thus the third version was born: > > Build-Depends: foo [amd64] <!profile.stage1> > > We wrote down the last two options in form of a spec on the Debian wiki [11]. > > Patches for dpkg, python-debian, apt and sbuild implementing the original > format have existed for years [4]. Patches for the new formats have existed > for > some time as well [5]. They are surely not perfect but we would like to get > them into a state in which they can be integrated into dpkg. But for that we > need some feedback from the dpkg devs as well as a final decision of the > Debian > community about which syntax to choose. We are writing to d-devel this time > because the thread on d-dpkg [6,7] has been dormant for a month once again. > Maybe bringing this issue to a wider audience will help make a decision on > this > problem. The results from two years of GSoC [8,9] as well as the year long > efforts of others [10] cannot bear any fruit without this issue finally being > taken care of. > > Thank you! > > josch & wookey > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/20130115181840.GA16417@hoothoot > [2] http://lists.debian.org/20726.45081.38709.233...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > [3] http://lists.debian.org/20130816121504.gb20...@gaara.hadrons.org > [4] http://people.debian.org/~wookey/bootstrap/patches/profiles/tools/ > [5] http://lists.debian.org/20130917103117.2726.40546@hoothoot > [6] http://lists.debian.org/20130419194252.17205.76995@hoothoot > [7] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2013/08/msg00019.html > [8] http://www.alkmim.eti.br/~alkmim/gitrepo/autobootstrap.git > [9] https://gitorious.org/debian-bootstrap/botch > [10] http://people.debian.org/~wookey/bootstrap > [11] https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec > > > -- > 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/20131015060337.7934.42627@hoothoot >
-- YunQiang Su -- 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/CAKcpw6VGjrC=++ka2cjq8bp6r8w8y4odviddtfr2nunsjlk...@mail.gmail.com
