Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-03-15 Thread Goswin von Brederlow
Roger Leigh writes: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: >> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: >> > > I disagree here. >> > > Alternatives in build-* relationships *are*

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-03-06 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Sonntag, den 06.03.2011, 16:41 +0100 schrieb Olaf van der Spek: > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > > I have a bit a bad feeling about not being able to use alternatives in > > build-depends. For example at the moment, we are renaming a self-hosting > > compiler pac

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-03-06 Thread Olaf van der Spek
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Joachim Breitner wrote: > I have a bit a bad feeling about not being able to use alternatives in > build-depends. For example at the moment, we are renaming a self-hosting > compiler package from ghc6 to ghc. Previously, the dependency has been > on "ghc6". Now it i

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-03-06 Thread Joachim Breitner
Hi, Am Montag, den 28.02.2011, 19:12 + schrieb Roger Leigh: > Agreed. Note that we now support strict 'first-only' alternatives > handling with the 'apt' and 'aptitude' resolvers. See the notes for > 0.60.0 and 0.60.1 pertaining to resolvers here: > > http://git.debian.org/?p=buildd-tools/s

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-03-01 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 07:12:00PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > This is correct. I was thinking about drafting a patch for Policy > > > about this. Current Policy

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-28 Thread Steve Langasek
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 07:12:00PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > This was a pain when we changed the default inetd--every package > required updating. For others, e.g. mail-transport-agent, it's even > more painful (I thought an mta-default was proposed, similar to > virtual-policy above, but can't

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-28 Thread Roger Leigh
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 03:36:47PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > > I disagree here. > > > Alternatives in build-* relationships *are* mentioned by policy. In fact

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-28 Thread Russ Allbery
Wouter Verhelst writes: > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: >> · concrete|virtual >> libgl1-mesa-dev | libgl-dev >> libglu1-mesa-dev | libglu-dev > The nvidia GL libraries conflict with mesagl. If you use the non-free > nvidia driver, you cannot install libgl1-mesa

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-28 Thread Wouter Verhelst
Hi Roger, On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:08:18PM +, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > > I disagree here. > > Alternatives in build-* relationships *are* mentioned by policy. In fact, > > there's even an example in section 7.1. > > This is co

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-23 Thread Bernd Zeimetz
On 02/22/2011 06:08 PM, Roger Leigh wrote: I agree that the documentation is sorely lacking in this regard. It is, however, an unofficial and unwritten policy. The need for this is fairly self-explanatory: we don't want builds to vary. Taking one of php5's dependencies as an example: libdb-

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread Bill Allombert
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 06:49:21PM +, 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

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread gregor herrmann
On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +, Roger Leigh wrote: > · Standard alternative use in the form "concrete|virtual", as used for > normal deps on virtual packages. Is this sensible? > · Architecture-specific dependencies > · Broken uses. Dependencies on multiple different libraries which will >

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread Ian Jackson
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 al

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread Roger Leigh
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 05:21:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"): > > Taking one of php5's dependencies as an example: > > > > libdb-dev (>= 4.7) | libdb4.8-dev | libdb

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread Ian Jackson
Roger Leigh writes ("Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps"): > Taking one of php5's dependencies as an example: > > libdb-dev (>= 4.7) | libdb4.8-dev | libdb4.6-dev > > This dependency permits building against no less than *three* di

Re: re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

2011-02-22 Thread Roger Leigh
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 07:42:32PM -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote: > Hi everyone, Roger, > > Roger Leigh has filed a few bug reports related to how the buildd's resolver > (either internal or any of the new ones: apt{,itude}) and I'm not sure I > quiet agree. > Let's take for example the one filed