Debian autobuilders are currently refusing to build runit on many
architectures (both official and unofficial) with the following
message[1][2]
runit build-depends on missing:
- empty-dependency-after-parsing
The immediate cause seems to be that runit recently removed procps from
it's build-depends leaving the only build-dependency an arch qualified
one, specifically.
Build-Depends: dietlibc-dev (>> 0.28-0) [alpha amd64 arm hppa i386 ia64
mips mipsel powerpc ppc64 s390 sparc]
Googling "empty-dependency-after-parsing" finds a single result which
seems to be a patch to remove the code generating it from wanna-build
along with some other code. [3] The patch description says that the
removed functionality is now in dose but doesn't specifically say if the
particular behviour on empty dependencies crossed over or not and a
reply indicates that the patch may not actually have been commited.
Comments in the code removed by the patch also hint that dpkg is also
unhappy with this situation "At least as of now, empty is also an error
from Dpkg::Deps, so better just prevent anything from building".
So I decided to try a manual build on armhf (one of the affected
architectures ). The package built successfully. Furthermore I don't see
anything in policy that would forbid a package's only build dependency.
Therefore IMO anything that fails to handle this case correctly is
buggy. Do other people agree? if so where should wanna-build bugs be
filed (since wanna-build is not currently in Debian)? does anyone have a
simple testcase to see if the assertion in the comment about Dpkg::Deps
is also true?
[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=runit&suite=sid
[2] http://buildd.debian-ports.org/status/package.php?p=runit&suite=sid
[3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-wb-team/2013/09/msg00033.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53dacffa.40...@p10link.net
