+++ Steve Langasek [2013-10-19 20:46 -0700]: > Hi Johannes, > > My understanding is that all build-dependency loops in the archive can be > broken with a single additional stage (stage1), so only one added profile > and one added build-dependency field would be required.
No, that's wrong. We need stage2 for at least toolchain bootstrapping. And practical usage has shown that distinguishing between bootstrap, cross and test deps is genuinely useful. Doko has also expressed this opinion, and in is one of the few people that has used this seriously. So I really wouldn't want to go back to the simple 'Build-Depends-Stage1: <stuff>' implementation. I agree with Guillem on this. > Yes, it could > bitrot, but it's better than not having any of the data in the source > packages at all. And if someone really finds this inelegant and insists > that we should extend the syntax of the Build-Depends field, let them step > up and make that happen instead of pointing at grandiose plans they're not > making any effort to implement. A Build-Depends-Stage1 field requires no > support from dpkg in the archive to implement. Right, but we have now written the code for the better scheme, so the only issue is actually putting it in dpkg, which applied just the same to Build-Depends-Stage1. That original scheme had an advantage when nothing better had been done or proposed. Now it has none. Guillem has now put this back on his list and promised to put somethig in soon, so I hope we'll see something which is both reasonably flexible and implemented very soon. Wookey -- Principal hats: Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM http://wookware.org/ -- 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/20131023180136.gl7...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
