+++ Johannes Schauer [2013-05-18 10:13 +0200]: > Hello again, > > Quoting David Kalnischkies (2013-04-23 20:01:10) > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> > > wrote: > > > Otherwise, the advantage of the second is, that it prevents mixing > > > different scopes in one [...] qualifier and is also a bit shorter (but > > > also > > > more irregular). > > > > I don't see the benefit of enforcing rules on which scopes can be mixed in > > one […] qualifier. Sure, you can make it a bit simpler, but I am not sure if > > it isn't biting us back one day if we can't mix scopes. Always a bit hard to > > imagine the future, but that we mix 'kernel' and 'arch' in one scope is good > > enough for me to belief that "one scope ought to be enough for anybody" > > might > > not be true in the end. > > I'm having trouble with implementing this and not breaking the API of > Dpkg::Deps::Simple and Dpkg::Deps::Multiple > > Consider the following line: > > Build-Depends: foo [amd64 profile.stage1] [i386 amd64] > > Which translates to: depend on foo if hostarch==amd64 or if hostarch is either > i386 or amd64 and stage1 compilation is required. > > This is just a synthetic example. It might not make any sense to mix > architectures with profiles but maybe there is/will be a scope which makes > sense to mix with architectures.
> So either the functions have to get additional arguments specifying which > other > scopes/values should be considered enabled or this info is stored in > Dpkg::Deps::Simple itself. [snip issues] > Alternatively, this can all be circumvented by requiring that a [] bracket > pair > with architectures inside must not appear more than once in the qualifier list > plus that the list that does contain the architectures must not contain any > other scope type (no mixing with architectures). In the interests of making some progress, I suggest that we simply say that arches and profiles can't be mixed in a [], as otherwise we'd have to change the dpkg API, and no-one seems very keen on that. Yes it would be nicer, but no-one has thought of a case where it's important. We didn't need any such thing with the <> syntax, so if the dpkg maintainers want to avoid changing the API, and we can do that by only accepting a slightly stricter syntax, then lets do that. The current iteration of the Spec, after some refinement at debconf, is here: https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec So I think I am suggesting that the entry "We propose that literals of different namespaces can be mixed within a disjunction. Therefore, the following would be legal: Build-Depends foo [arch.i386 !profile.cross]" Is changed to say that you can't do that, and have to do [i386] [!profile.cross] instead. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130816015945.gc24...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
