On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:02:04AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:39:59AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > One thought I had today was what will happen with packages using > > > either cdbs or dh. Both of these provide build-arch and build-indep > > > rules, and as a result both can build using those targets today > > > (though individual packages may of course be broken if they did > > > things in the wrong rules). However, each would require updating > > > individually to actually enable their use. Autodetection here would > > > prevent the need for this. > > > It would not. Currently autobuilder always only install Build-Depends, so > > 'debian/rules build' has to work with only Build-Depends installed. > > > This means there has basically two cases for package having > > build-arch/build-indep: > > a) Packages do not have Build-Depends-Indep. > > b) Packages have Build-Depends-Indep but the documentation is built in > > binary-indep > > instead of build-indep. > > > To get any advantage from this proposal, packages a) need to be changed to > > have a proper Build-Depends-Indep line. Packages b) already provides the > > split anyway. > > There are two benefits of this intended change: avoiding the downloading > and installation of heavy build-dependencies only needed for generation of > architecture-independent packages; and avoiding the build-time generation of > those architecture-independent packages. Existing packages that have > properly structured their debian/rules targets already for the second case > would get immediate benefit from autodetection, with no further changes.
How ? Can you give an exemple ? autobuilders already do not install Build-Depends-Indep. 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/20110607085433.GA10077@yellowpig
