Charles Plessy wrote: >Le Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 07:18:40PM +0100, Johannes Schauer a écrit : >> >> The build profile format was proposed by Guillem Jover together with >> other solutions he presented in this document [7] as part of bug#661538. >> Build profiles extend the Build-Depends format with a syntax similar to >> architecture restrictions but using < and > instead. >> >> Build-Depends: huge (>= 1.0) [i386 arm] <!embedded !stage1>, tiny > >Hi Johannes, > >It looks to me that the above is trying to implement the equivalent of >Recommends for build dependancies. "The Recommends field should list packages >that would be found together with this one in all but unusual installations." > >Are you entirely sure that you need to distinguish between profiles, instead of >having the source package build rules do the right things according to which >recommended packages have been installed ? In that case, your example >could be reduced to: > >Build-Depends: tiny >Build-Recommends: huge (>= 1.0)
No, not at all. This discussion has happened before, and Build-Recommends has been suggested before. It's broken, leading to non-deterministic package builds and associated insanity. Explicit sets of profiles are an alternative that (it seems) are the new preferred way to do bootstrapping, and also other optional (but fully-specified) versions of packages. It's quite possible that it may be necessary to have several stage profiles, depending on how big a potential package loop you need to break. In this case, you'll need to have <!stage1> through to <!stageN> listed for that package. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews -- 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/e1tvghz-0000ls...@mail.einval.com
