On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 10:54:38AM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote: > I see your point, and I can live with the Arch- variants if a majority > wants them.
The majority? There have been, what, probably less than ten people involved in this discussion. I don't think a majority vote among them would be of any indication of what majority want. > But I still think they just make more work, both for > maintainers who have to define them, and for tools which read source > dependencies. The work for the tools is insignificant. For maintainers - well, they can always use Build-Depends as a catch-all and use it like they would use it in your model. Here's how the fields would map to the targets Six-field: Build-(Depends|Conflicts): build, binary-arch, binary-indep Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Arch: binary, binary-arch Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Indep: binary, binary-indep Four-field: Build-(Depends|Conflicts): build, binary, binary-arch, binary-indep Build-(Depends|Conflicts)-Indep: binary, binary-indep (I just noticed that we must not have build map to anything else than the plain Build-Depends in either model; as you noted earlier, it would just make the other fields void of purpose.) If in the four-field model, a maintainer could say Build-Depends: foo bar Build-Depends-Indep: baz where bar is being needed only for the arch-dependent packages, then in the six-field model she can say either Build-Depends: foo bar Build-Depends-Indep: baz (the same!) or Build-Depends: foo Build-Depends-Arch: bar Build-Depends-Indep: baz whichever suits her. Of course, the two-field way in the six-field model will be deprecated when (if) we allow building only arch-all packages. Would the six-field model be okay with you in this light? > > Build-time dependencies must specify version number(s) of package(s) > > if the version in the current Debian stable distribution is not > > adequate. If this is necessary usually a >= dependency should be > > used. > > This looks like an important point. Anybody against it? I would be. I don't like introducing the variable concept of "stable distribution" in here. I'd more like to use the rule we use with binary dependencies: use versioned dependency if some version would not be acceptable, independent of the distributions involved. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..." (Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
