On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:30:30 Adam Borowski wrote: > I'm afraid this is a bad idea for three reasons: > > 1. you'd get a misbuild if libfoo-dev happens to be temporarily > uninstallable due to a transition of something it depends on, > it or one of its dependencies happen to wait for a co-installed > multiarch package, and so on > > 2. same, if libfoo-dev is not yet built. It can happen if it has just been > uploaded, we're in the middle of an archive rebuild (a new arch, some > derivative), etc.
Good points, thanks. I did't think of this. Perhaps this idea is not flawless but we might have a potential for improvement. > 3. don't certain build modes (sbuild IIRC) ignore any alternatives in the > first place? If so, you'll cause a FTBFS. You might know better if that's the case. But if build servers are ignoring alternatives, that's a (different) problem, right? I recognise a potential for misuse of trivially satisfiable dependency but generally speaking you don't blame tool for those who misuse it... Thanks for sharing your concerns. Regards, Dmitry. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201209082213.48035.only...@member.fsf.org
