Bug#311724: [Build-common-hackers] Bug#311724: cdbs: Automatic update of debian/control, first paragraph, broken

Martin Quinson Martin Quinson <martin.quinson@loria.fr>, 311724@bugs.debian.org
Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:15:12 +0200

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:08:01AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Im talking about the "Update Build-Depends on the fly" thing and the bad
> things that it produces.
> Sorry, but Packages with such autogenerated build-dependencies should
> not go in our archive, for various reasons, the biggest one is:
> - Modifying them on the fly can mean that they change without you noticing
>   it. This is not bad for the actual built you do, but now think about la=
>   builds. Our autobuilders will get the changed Build-Dependencies and th=
>   may built a different thing.
>   Or think about NMUs (eg. for RC fixes and stuff) or in worst case even
>   security updates.

I am playing with the idea of having cdbs ensuring that the human provided
dependencies are enough. I mean, if cdbs various part say that we need this:
> 1: debhelper (>=3D4.2.0), cdbs (>=3D0.4.23-1.1), build-essential,
>    debhelper (>=3D4.1.0), quilt, patchutils (>=3D0.2.25),
>    cdbs (>=3D0.4.27-1), python-dev

then make sure that the build dependencies hand-written in the control file
ensure at least=20
debhelper (>=3D4.2.0), cdbs (>=3D0.4.27-1), quilt, patchutils (>=3D0.2.25),=

Ie, that the set of human provided build-dependencies encompass the script
demanded ones. Would it be ok for you to stop the compilation process if
it's not the case (ie, if the human forgot one build-dep, according to the
scripts), or would you consider this as just another form of the pure evil
you are talking in your mail?

Anyway, I'm struggling with implementations issue here and don't plan to do
anything before a while. Of course, I could do a little perl script
somewhere under /usr/lib doing the verification, but I was kind of wondering
if such thing already exists in dpkg or apt or not...

Bye, Mt.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)