* Joey Hess (jo...@debian.org) [110815 18:32]: > Andreas Barth wrote: > > Also, the binary packages in the debian/control template could have > > Build-Depends specified which means that they should only be built if > > those packages are actually installed (so we could do an automated > > graph analyis, and also dh and cdbs could just drop them, so that > > debian/rules doesn't need to reflect the dependencies) > > So there would need to be an interface in dpkg to get a list of binary > packages to build. In order for this not to make debhelper slow, it > would need to be a startlingly fast interface, for something that needs > to read the status file. :/ Or DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS could have something set > for this case and the status file lookup avoided in the general case.
I'd rather consider the second case - accept a slower debhelper on partial builds. > debhelper would need to disable dh_install --fail-missing in this case > too. Happily dh_movefiles is not used by default, as if some packages > are not built, this could result in files that were normally > put in those packages instead being moved into another package. Ok - we should add that to "if the maintainer enables this mechanismn, he needs to make sure that ..." (and in lots of cases, that's not an issue). Does that sound ok? > > To mark such packages and to be able to decide when to re-schedule the > > build, all binary-packages get the additional header > > Build-Depends: minmal package_version .... > > Is "package_version ...." supposed to be a list of the packages and > versions used in the minimal build? Yes. We basically have a list of such packages anyways within the buildd log these days, but adding it here wouldn't hurt. 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/20110815173754.gb15...@mails.so.argh.org
