* Andreas Barth [2011-08-15 13:46 +0200]: > * Carsten Hey (cars...@debian.org) [110815 13:36]: > > An optional "Build-Depends:" field per binary package as you described > > is essentially the same as the following, with the notable difference, > > that the below could appear as it is in the output of, i.e., apt-cache > > showsrc without requiring maintainers of all those packages to invent > > a new syntax just to enable users and developers to look up information. > > > > Build-Depends[foo-stage1]: debhelper > > Build-Depends[foo-stage2]: debhelper, libx11-dev > > Build-Depends: debhelper, libx11-dev, libgnome2-dev > > No, it's not. > > There is an really large difference: This here means the maintainer > needs to write down by hand what the path to build the package is.
There seems to be a misunderstanding, caused by choosing an unfortunate example, here is an other one: Source: emacs23 Build-Depends: gnome, kde, ncurses-dev Build-Depends[emacs23-nox]: ncurses-dev If necessary, debhelper could ensure that the binary packages's dependencies are included in the Build-Depends line. apt-cache showsrc emacs23 currently displays something similar to: Package: emacs23 Binary: emacs, emacs23-lucid, emacs23-nox, emacs23, ... ... Build-Depends: gnome, kde, ncurses-dev ... If per-package build dependencies are added, it could look like this with my proposal: Package: emacs23 ... Build-Depends: gnome, kde, ncurses-dev Build-Depends[emacs23-nox]: ncurses-dev ... With your proposal it would either miss information, invent yet an other syntax, or use multiple fields per source package with the same name but a different semantic: Package: emacs23 ... Build-Depends: gnome, kde, ncurses-dev Build-Depends: ncurses-dev ... Regards Carsten -- 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/20110815123553.gc14...@furrball.stateful.de