Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:08:57PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Policy says Build-Depends-Indep must be installed for the build
>> target, which sbuild calls. But sbuild does not install
>> Build-Depends-Indep. Same goes for dpkg-checkbuildep -B, it does not
>> test for Build-Depends-Indep while build will always be called.
>>
>> At a minimum policy has to reflect that anything already needed for
>> the build target is in Build-Depends while only the actual *-indep
>> targets and binary require Build-Depends-Indep.
>
> Right. I didn't look at it that way.
>
>> > However, since all this was invented and written precisely to accomodate
>> > sbuild, it would be madness to suddenly change everything because it
>> > seems more aesthetic (or so), and then require that sbuil jump through
>> > hoops to accomodate the aestethic feelings of one particular developer.
>> > That would be the world upside-down.
>>
>> The idea is to improve sbuild, dpkg-buildpackage, debuild, pbuilder,
>> cowbuilder, lvmbuilder, .... with a simple change. I would hardly call
>> adding an (two) extra build relationship field jumping through
>> hoops.
>
> For clarity, with the above I didn't mean that this change involves
> "jumping through hoops" -- only that a hypothetical change which is done
> only to accomodate someone's aestethical feelings would be. I didn't
> really oppose this particular change (though I didn't see a good reason
> to do it -- now I do :-)
>
> Sorry I didn't make that any clearer.
No problem and I agree with you both in principle (jumping through
hoops is bad) and in this case (this is not jumping through
hoops). That is what discussing is for. :)
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
