On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:49:21PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"):
> > I agree that these do serve a useful purpose for these uses, and that
> > ease of reuse backporting and other types of porting are important.
> > However, there is no way to know which of those alternatives applies
> > to which suite. All of them are potentially going to be used for a
> > build in unstable, and it's this uncertainty which could potentially
> > lead to inconsistent builds.
>
> Well then some mechanism needs to exist to make it predictable. The
> current arrangement, where buildds always use the first alternative,
> seems like a pretty simple one. Is it not adequate ?
I think it is. What is missing is a flag for dpkg-checkbuilddeps (and
dpkg-buildpackage)
to enforce that behaviour, so that users can rebuild packages in the
predictable way
without using a buildd.
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballo...@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110222212124.GG3048@yellowpig
