On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hi, > > Roger Leigh <rle...@debian.org> (23/02/2011): > > From: Roger Leigh <rle...@debian.org> > > Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:14:56 +0000 > > Subject: [PATCH] Document restrictions on alternative build dependencies > > > > The Debian autobuilders only make use of the first alternative > > in a set of alternatives, in order to guarantee consistent, > > reproducible builds. This does not include architecture > > restrictions, because architecture reduction takes place before > > alternative removal. Alternatives are therefore allowed, and > > hence useful for backports and other distributions, but are not > > used by default. > > --- > > policy.sgml | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > thanks, I like the idea. (Adding Steve to Cc since he'll probably want > to chime in.) > > Tiny question: you say it eases backports. But then backports get > autobuilt on debian buildds, so will likely use the same set of > packages as say unstable, if build-depends aren't changed specifically > for the backports. So I'm not exactly sure it actually eases anything.
Yes, this might need rewording. Some people claimed it was useful for backports, so if the backports buildds are using the aptitude resolver, they could make use of the alternatives without any changes to debian/control; maybe it could be better phrased, since it would certainly work for self-built backports, or building on derivatives etc.? Feel free to phrase it better, or even remove that part, if it's unclear or not too helpful. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
