> The discussion of the following topics has been postponed, until the new > source package format is discussed: > > * source dependencies > * new control fields (Author, Upstream-Site, etc.)
I'd like to discuss and settle on a syntax and semantic for at least one new source control field, `Source-Depends'. It would indicate a package or packages (perhaps with versions) without which the package would not be guaranteed to build or might build incorrectly (though the latter should be avoided if possible). It would not be checked by dpkg-source except to issue a warning if the required package(s) weren't installed. dpkg-buildpackage could check, though, and could be given a new option to override the dependency. As far as I am concerned there is only one remaining issue to be settled with regard to this field: the list of packages upon which dependencies do not need to be listed. I propose that this list be: packages which have `Priority: Standard' or better (as determined by the archive maintainers, rather than the package maintainers, if there is a difference). I want this field to be specified now because the lack of it is the only thing stopping most of the distribution being (in principle) built automatically. If and when it is specified it will be possible to write a script which installs the required packages and does the build, automatically. Furthermore, the Source-Depends field can be checked automatically by having the script use an up-to-date system and install precisely the Standard packages plus those named in the Source-Depends. Any changes to the source format to allow (for example) more variation in upstream source formats or shared pieces of original, Debianised or built source code will not affect this field. Even any switch to a single-file binary source archive will not make this change obsolete; such a switch could be done by modification of only dpkg-source, and wouldn't require changes to packages' debian/control files. Ian.
