Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@ieee.org> writes: > On Tue, Apr 29 2014, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:01:58 -0700, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> >>> Felipe Sateler <fsate...@debian.org> >>> csound (U) >>> pulseaudio (U) > Add to that: >> Kari Pahula <k...@debian.org> >> gecode >> Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> >> krb5 (U)
> Missing Build-Depends-Indep is a common pattern among the 60 > or so remaining build failures. Yeah, I was wrong about my analysis here. I'll let Sam know. (Although it's still a minor bug that the package doesn't B-D-I directly on python-lxml.) > I will cut a normal bug on dpkg, and a serious one on make, and > make the former block the latter while we figure otu what to do. The > options, as I see it are: > 1) Do nothing. retain make-3.81 in Debian forever more. Needless to > say, this is not very attractive. Pro: There is no action to > take. Con: Almost every other distro is shipping a more recent > make. We will continue to diverge from everyone else, and already > the featires have diverged enough that people are having to add > special cases in the vuild system for the Debian family of > distributions. > 2) Hack dpkg-buildpackage to always load B-D-I, and go back to just > calling ./debian/rules build. This is what we used to do. Pro: it > is pretty easy to do (umm, I would think, but I don't know the dpkg > code base so well anymore). This has the con of the inefficiency we > have tried to eliminate, in that all the build dependencies are > loaded for every build, even when not strictly needed. > 3) We state that packages must provide build-arch and build-indep for > Jessie. This should trivially be true for every package using cdbs > or debhelper (or, heaven forbid, my old home brew build system), > and have dpkg-buildpackage call them without testing to see if they > exist. We would need to do another archive rebuild with the > modified dpkg-buildpackage to see how many packages do not > actually not implement these targets. Well, 2 is going back on something that we're trying to transition, and 1 seems obviously unacceptable. 3 is where we were trying to get to anyway. I vote for just biting the bullet and trying to do 3 for jessie. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lhun2zas....@windlord.stanford.edu
