"Matthias Klose <Matthias Klose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joey Hess writes:
> > Adam P. Harris wrote:
> > > I have. Some packages require specific versions of supporting
> > > packages. Since we don't have source depends,
> > > /usr/doc/<pkg>/buildinfo.Debian files are a useful thing.
> >
> > Buildinfo files are in binaryt packages. What does that have to do
> > with source packages?
>
> Perhaps not everybody wants to rebuild from the debian source
> package, but compile a newer upstream version for personal use or
> installation into /usr/local. Then the buildinfo in /usr/doc/<pkg>
> would be useful.
Say, what? Sorry, but this is complete rubbish. buildinfo.Debian
files as produced by debmake are utterly useless for telling you
anything about source depends. All it does is tell you what versions
of a set of pre-set packages[1] were installed when the package was
built[2], it tells you nothing about whatever exotic libraries a
package might need to be built or random programs used by the build
process.
There may be an argument for buildinfo.Debian files (I've yet to see
it), but this surely isn't it.
[1] "dpkg -l gcc 'libc*' debmake binutils ldso make dpkg-dev | awk '$1 ~ /^.i/
{ printf("%s-%s\n", $2, $3) }' >tmp/usr/doc/$PACKAGE/buildinfo.Debian"
\begin{rant}Couldn't the damn thing be a little more clever than
"libc*"? phaf\end{rant}
[2] It won't even tell you what was used to build the package; if
gforth were debstd-ised, the buildinfo.Debian file would still
list gcc despite the fact that gforth uses and requires egcc to
build. Tres useful.
--
James - debmake, just say no.
~Yawn And Walk North~
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
