Quoting Adrian Bunk (2020-07-18 10:36:11)
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> >...
> > We have came up with a syntax, one goal being to break parsers and not
> > silently ignore optional deps:
> >
> > Build-Depends: foo? (>= 1) | baz
>
> Any suggestion has t
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>...
> We have came up with a syntax, one goal being to break parsers and not
> silently ignore optional deps:
>
> Build-Depends: foo? (>= 1) | baz
Any suggestion has to equally cover runtime dependencies,
the same situation i
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 06:56:56PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >Rationales:
> >
> >
> >1. You can start optionally build-depending on stuff available
> > only on some architectures, without having to use arch
Hi,
Quoting Julian Andres Klode (2020-07-16 19:27:52)
> Rationales:
>
>
> 1. You can start optionally build-depending on stuff available
>only on some architectures, without having to use arch restriction
>lists.
>
>Arch restriction lists are tediuous, especially also because in
>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
...
>Rationales:
>
>
>1. You can start optionally build-depending on stuff available
> only on some architectures, without having to use arch restriction
> lists.
>
> Arch restriction lists are tediuous, especially also
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 07:27:52PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> Not liked proposals:
>
> Build-Depends-Optional field - it would just be ignored by tools,
> silently, and we'd find about it onyl when it is too late.
>
> Build-Recommends field - same as previous, but also the semantic
6 matches
Mail list logo
