Hi, Quoting YunQiang Su (2013-10-15 08:08:52) > On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Johannes Schauer <j.scha...@email.de> wrote: > > What is yet to be decided is the concrete format for the Build-Depends > > syntax extension. The first proposals suggested a syntax which looked like > > > > Build-Depends: foo [amd64] <!stage1> > I'd prefer Build-Depends-Stage1 if possible. > When bootstrap, dpkg only ask for these build-depends while for normal build, > dpkg should merge Build-Depends-Stage1 and Build-Depends.
this approach does not work because it does not allow to specify additional dependencies for when a source package is compiled with a certain profile activated. The Build-Depends-Stage1 field name was used in earlier proposals with a different meaning. Instead of making the final build dependencies the union of Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Stage1 as you proposed, Build-Depends-Stage1 contained all dependencies necessary for the build profile "stage1". When doing a normal build, only the Build-Depends would be used. When building with the build profile "stage1" activated only the Build-Depends-Stage1 would be used. This solves the problem I explained above which your solution has. This Build-Depends-Stage1 format was abolished in favor of the syntax additions explained in my last email because of the following reasons: - it requires variable field names to match all possible profiles - it requires a near duplication of the Build-Depends field which is highly prone to bitrot - it does not work with multiple profiles activated at the same time For a full history of the development of this see http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=661538 cheers, josch -- 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/20131015063400.7934.32962@hoothoot