+++ Guillem Jover [2013-08-16 14:15 +0200]: > > The current iteration of the Spec, after some refinement at debconf, is > > here: > > https://wiki.debian.org/BuildProfileSpec > > I've not checked that yet, will try to do that during this weekend. > ISTM I had an issue with the new field being Profile instead of > Build-Profile, for example. Will need to check my notes.
Please do - we'd really like to lay this to bed and actually implement something in the archive. > > 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. > > I've been pondering about the (old) updated proposal, and while I can > see Ian's argument and can agree with the problems he presents, I > can't really see using a syntax like «pkg [foo] [bar]» as something > desirable given the current context. As josch pointed out, it would actually be pkg [foo], pkg [bar] > I'd expect the failure modes for > those to be silent, and it might imply wrongly parsed or computed > depdendencies. I want old tools to break spectacularly so that they > can be spotted and fixed. Using the same bracket characters for > different blocks on the same dependency also seems confusing, and > mixing different namespaces for something that has only expected > architecture up to now more so. > > While the bracket characters are limited, and using <> can be > considered to waste them when we could reuse others, it's the cleaner > and safer option. And I'm fine with allowing any namespace there, not > just build profiles, so that we can have a slightly more future proof > syntax. We could even consider switching from [] to <arch.foo> if > desired for example. We're absolutely fine with the <> syntax, which is already implemented (and to be honest I prefer the look of it in practice). Are you proposing pkg <!profile.stage1> as opposed to pkg <!stage1>? We can adjust the patches for that if so. 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/20130816172849.gf24...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
