On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 07:49:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:09:46PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > What are the real benefits from having build-arch and build-indep? > > > Are there really so many packages which would benefit from having them? [...] > For the same reason I would like to see the real benefits from > changing the format of debian/rules. Did you miss the original subject of the thread? The benefit of the proposal is to make the split Build-Depends-(Indep) useful at all[1]. Currently it is not, because the autobuilders invoke the build target, which in turn invokes build-arch and build-indep, so you have to put anything needed for building in Build-Depends, as the autobuilders will uselessly build the build-indep target. The -indep targets can be rather expensive, executing tex and other stuff and requiing installing rather big packages. I might be misunderstanding you, and you are actually asking for a list of packages that would benefit from the proposal. - I don't think that is easy to generate, as it requires checking debian/rules by hand, we have just libtool as example. cu andreas [1] Currently this is only possible with ugliness like making build-indep an empty target and doing the actual expensive work in binary-indep, or ignoring policy's recommendation to make build depend on build-arch and build-indep. -- "See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf, fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha. Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"