On 8 September 2012 09:30, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 05:08:34PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>> Package: wnpp
>>Package name: optional-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> There are situations when some of the libraries listed in Build-Depends
>> are optional i.e. build system is smar
On 10 September 2012 13:46, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:01:17PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>> When building for as many architectures as we have, situation when some
>> dependencies are missing (or can't exist) on some architectures is not rare.
>>
>> However we still want to
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:01:17PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> When building for as many architectures as we have, situation when some
> dependencies are missing (or can't exist) on some architectures is not rare.
>
> However we still want to build our packages with all features possible.
You
Guillem Jover dixit:
>then some of the cases this tries to address (the “optional” nature of
>dependencies for derivatives for example) would get covered by my
>build-profiles proposal in #661538, which as stated there might need
Yes, please! Besides bootstrapping, use cases do include derived
di
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Thanks Paul, primarily I was trying to address a problem when package build
> unnecessarily fails due to lack of "optional" dependency before an actual
> attempt to build.
I was more wanting to know which specific problem you were trying to
Dmitry Smirnov writes:
> Due to risk of FTBFS maintainer should be careful with introducing
> dependencies that are non-critical for upstream build.
I think the opposite is true for the Debian archive. Local package builds
and derivatives may have other needs, but within the Debian archive it'
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 00:30:41 brian m. carlson wrote:
> Debian users depend on the package being built in a consistent way. For
> example, some packages are built with Kerberos support. While this is
> generally optional for most packages, I'd be very upset if, say, the
> Debian openssh-server pack
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 02:06:52 Paul Wise wrote:
> I would be interested to see what real use-cases people wanted this
> sort of thing for. Dimitry, which specific problem were you trying to
> solve when you came up with optional-dev?
Thanks Paul, primarily I was trying to address a problem when packa
Hi!
On Sat, 2012-09-08 at 17:08:34 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> All the above problems may be addressed by using this package as
> alternative to optional build dependency like in the example below:
>
> Build-Depends: libchamplain-gtk-0.12-dev | optional-dev,
>libopenipm
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 8:43 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
> Build-Recommends(-Indep)
I would be interested to see what real use-cases people wanted this
sort of thing for. Dimitry, which specific problem were you trying to
solve when you came up with optional-dev?
> But I see the use case, e.g. for
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:05:21 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:43:47PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > But I see the use case, e.g. for packages that rebuild the
> > documentation if some tool is available and just skip it gracefully
> > and use the shipped version, if not
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:01:17PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> > really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> > not be fixed by introduci
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:43:47PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> But I see the use case, e.g. for packages that rebuild the
> documentation if some tool is available and just skip it gracefully
> and use the shipped version, if not.
How do you make sure that the uploaded packages are reproducibl
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 22:01:17 +1000
Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> > really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> > not be fixed by introducing a n
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 22:01:17 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> > "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> > really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> > not be fixed by introducing a
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 21:06:29 Simon McVittie wrote:
> This doesn't really give enough guarantees (even if sbuild followed
> non-first branches in alternative-lists, which IIRC it doesn't). If
> champlain happens to be temporarily uninstallable on (say) powerpc at
> the time the empathy build happens,
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:30:30 Adam Borowski wrote:
> I'm afraid this is a bad idea for three reasons:
>
> 1. you'd get a misbuild if libfoo-dev happens to be temporarily
>uninstallable due to a transition of something it depends on,
>it or one of its dependencies happen to wait for a co-inst
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 19:37:33 Holger Levsen wrote:
> "optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's
> really optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should
> not be fixed by introducing a nonsense package, but by removing this
> depends.
Not at all, it m
Hi,
On 08.09.2012 13:06, Simon McVittie wrote:
> It would perhaps make more sense if there was a way for the libchamplain
> maintainer to nominate excluded architectures, so empathy could say
> something like:
>
> Build-Depends: libchamplain-...-dev |
>champlain-unavailabl
On 08/09/12 08:08, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Often some development libraries are not available on all architectures
> in which case maintainer should know beforehand which architectures may
> satisfy this dependency and maintain an up-to-date list of architectures
> for such packages, like in the fo
Hi,
"optional depends" - what?? Thats self contradictory. If a depends it's really
optional, it's not a depends, thus that package is buggy and should not be
fixed by introducing a nonsense package, but by removing this depends.
cheers,
Holger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dev
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 05:08:34PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Package: wnpp
>Package name: optional-dev
>
>
>
> There are situations when some of the libraries listed in Build-Depends
> are optional i.e. build system is smart enough to avoid failure when
> such library is missing
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Package name: optional-dev
Version: 20120908
Author: Dmitry Smirnov
License: GPL-3+
Description: fake (empty) dev package
Purpose of this package is to provide an alternat
23 matches
Mail list logo
