On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 05:52:27PM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > 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.) Wasn't really any need for that, I am subscribed to -policy. :) > 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. The one aspect of the current buildd behavior not addressed here is that the autobuilders will only *consider* the first alternative build-dep for *installation*; but if at the end of b-d installation the full build-dep relationship is satisfied because a different package was pulled in (or previously installed) that satisfies one of the other alternatives, the build dependencies of the package as a whole are considered satisfied. This was touched on briefly in <20110223115755.gm31...@codelibre.net> on debian-devel. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
