Hi, Quoting Michael Stapelberg (2015-10-14 22:25:25) > Ah, so dose-ceve operates on binary packages in the invocation that we’re > using.
yes. When I talk about source packages I prefix them with "src:" or explicitly say "source packages". When I talk about binary packages then I will not use that prefix and will also call them "binary package" except if it's clear from the context (for example there are only virtual binary packages but no virtual source packages). > Is there a way to make it work on source packages instead? In general: yes. If you want dose-ceve to operate on a source package you have to let it look for src:golang-golang-x-tools (that selects the source package) and not golang-golang-x-tools (that selects the binary package). But this will not find any reverse dependencies because by default nothing depends on the source package. This is because by default there is no connection between the binary packages a source package builds to their source package in the package graph. To fix this you'd add the --deb-builds-from option which would connect all binary packages to the source package they build from. The problem here is that this connection would be made for *all* source packages and not only for src:golang-golang-x-tools. So you would still not get the desired result (except if you are are also interested in checking whether rebuilding a source package build depending on your new binary package also still lets all source packages build depending on that *new* source packages binary packages build properly). > I feel like that would be a tad more efficient, as ratt would not need to > extract all binary packages Extracting all binary packages introduced by your upload is trivial. Just look at the Binary: field in your .changes file. > and dose-ceve would not need to parse all the binary index files. It needs to parse the binary index files anyways because otherwise it cannot give you transitive reverse dependencies. So while I have commit rights to dose upstream git I do not see a benefit yet in adding such a feature. Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
