On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:54:42PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Hi, > > for practice and because I want to use it, I am working on a package of > the CVS version of auctex, a LaTeX mode for Emacs. Since it's only an > Emacs-addon written in Lisp, it's of course architecture independent. > > In debian/rules of the "real" package from unstable, binary requires > binary-arch and binary-indep; the first does nothing and the second > builds the package. > > In the original package's control file, there is a line of > Build-Depends-Indep, but no Build-Depends. Does this make sense for a > source package that has no architecture dependent binary packages at > all? Why not just use Build-Depends here and use Build-Depends-Indep > only when a source package yields both kinds of binary packages?
Because it is simpler to have two easily expressed rules ("Build-Depends must be satisfied for <X> targets", "Build-Depends-Indep must be satisfied for <Y> targets") than a complex set of exceptions ("Build-Depends must be satisfied for <X> on Arch: (!= all), or <Y> on Arch: all, unless Build-Depends-Indep is also set, in which case....") 6 extra characters in the control file is a small price to pay for sanity, especially because it allows some of us (namely, porters) to build *simple* tools that figure out dependancy trees, and which can prune some parts of them based on this information. -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgp0LRl47QBea.pgp
Description: PGP signature