On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 09:28:27PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Hello World, > > As many of you undoubtedly know, experimental is autobuilt these days. ...
> However, it will only work if the build-dependencies are fully > specified; i.e., if a package 'foo' in experimental requires another > package in experimental (let's call that one 'bar'), and another package > needs 'foo' from experimental to build, then just installing 'foo' from > experimental isn't going to cut it; you would end up with a command line > like "apt-get install foo=<experimental version>", which would try to > install the experimental version of foo with the unstable version of > bar, and fail because of unmet versioned dependencies. > > The solution[1] to this problem lies in a different use of the > build-depends field: we're hereby asking maintainers who upload to > experimental, to make sure to fully specify their build-dependencies on > experimental packages; not just the packages they directly depend on, > but also the packages they indirectly, through other packages, depend > on. > > Let me repeat that, because it's quite important: if you upload a > package to experimental, and you declare a versioned build-depends on > something that is also in experimental, then you *must* make sure that > you also declare a versioned build-depends on any other packages from > experimental that your direct build-dependencies depend on; otherwise, > your package *will not build*. > > It is, of course, not necessary to also declare versioned build-depends > on indirectly-required packages from unstable. Is there a tool to recurively list version of dependencies, as reportbug does? Justin (Please Cc me) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
