Hi, sorry to not have responded earlier.
On Fri, 04 Dec 2009, George Danchev wrote: > 1) Would you accept patches like that, based on AptPkg, i.e. is it too > intrusive for you? I can see your reasons if you prefer to avoid the extra > dependency on libapt-pkg-perl. AptPkg is really a no-go for me. I don't see why it's so important to verify that we have one available version to satisfy the build-dependency if we're going to fail anyway. There are definitely some improvements to do in dpkg-checkbuilddeps though. Producing that "frontend-frienly" list is certainly useful as is introducing a new option to have a machine readable output: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=214566 I'm certainly interested in patches for those issues. Please work on the master branch, there have been some recent changes due to the API cleanup. Also please use the various existing modules when possible (for example Dpkg::Version for version comparison). > 3) Rewrite that with calls to `apt-cache policy' (to get available package > versions) and `dpkg --compare-versions' (for version comparisons), which is > not a sign of great engineering ;-) Hell no. > 4) Leave that to the Almighty sbuild tool? That's the current situation, no? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
