* Carsten Hey (cars...@debian.org) [110815 14:36]: > * 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
That's just re-ordering the way the entries are specified. I don't mind either way, but I'd consider it more natural to have it at the binary packages. Andi -- 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/20110815124054.gs2...@mails.so.argh.org
