[buildd-tools-devel] re buildd's resolver and package's build deps

[Roger Leigh]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 10:13:19PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:08:18 +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> 
> > · Standard alternative use in the form "concrete|virtual", as used for
> >   normal deps on virtual packages.  Is this sensible?
> > · Architecture-specific dependencies
> > · Broken uses.  Dependencies on multiple different libraries which will
> >   lead to inconsistent builds.  This affects only a tiny minority of
> >   packages.  The most obviously broken one I found is already fixed.
>  
> > · Pointless and/or broken
> [..]
> >   perl (>= 5.10) | libmodule-build-perl
> 
> Could you please explain what's "pointless and/or broken" about that
> one?
> 
> (Except that it's old since even lenny has 5.10.0.

Yes, that's exactly the reason.  Because the perl (>= 5.10) is
satisfied under all circumstances, the libmodule-build-perl
alternative is entirely redundant.

 More recent
> exmples:
> perl (>= 5.10.1) | libtest-simple-perl (>= 0.88)
> perl (>= 5.12.3) | libmodule-build-perl (>= 0.3601)
> etc.)

These are more recent, but even for these cases the versioned
perl dependency without the alternative is entirely adequate for
building purposes.

> > My take on this is that anything other than arch-specific alternatives
> > should be strongly discouraged, if not outright banned, and that this
> > should be put into Policy.  Alternative viewpoints, with examples and
> > rationale would be useful to hear.
> 
> For perl packages: if Module::Build, Test::More, etc. (as dual-lifed
> modules) are in two packages, I see no point in not allowing them
> both. And this makes backporting, building "at home" etc. easier.

That's definitely something we should not be making harder.  One
problem with the alternatives is bitrot though, if they are just
left.  They should be actively tested, and dropped eventually.
For the examples above, it definitely makes sense for backporting.
For others, it's not quite so useful.


Regards,
Roger

-- 
  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20110222/08c4ac96/attachment.pgp>