Bug#661538: Add support for Build-Depends-Stage1 in order to allow breaking of cyclic Build-depends loops

2012-08-18 Thread P. J. McDermott
file" option was missing from deps_parse(). Attached is a patch in which these issues are corrected. Thanks, -- P. J. McDermott(_/@\_),--. http://www.pehjota.net/ o< o o > / oo \ http://www.pehjota.net/con

Bug#661538: Add support for Build-Depends-Stage1 in order to allow breaking of cyclic Build-depends loops

2012-07-16 Thread P. J. McDermott
On 2012-07-16 23:02, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 22:04:57 -0400, P. J. McDermott wrote: >> The patch does not verify that the profile chosen by the user is >> actually specified in the package's control file. I'm not sure if (or >> where) that

Bug#661538: Add support for Build-Depends-Stage1 in order to allow breaking of cyclic Build-depends loops

2012-07-16 Thread P. J. McDermott
ot; proposal) is a possible alternative to the previously considered options. We're not yet sure if all of the bootstrap dependency information can be easily expressed in this build profiles syntax; I'll be working to help determine this in the

Bug#661538: Patch generalization and field to mark staged packages

2012-06-13 Thread P. J. McDermott
foreach my $key (keys %FIELDS_RE) { return $FIELDS_RE{$key} if $field =~ m/^$key$/; } return undef; } Would this be acceptable? Do you have a preference between the supplementary attribute and the separate hash? T

Bug#661538: Patch generalization and field to mark staged packages

2012-06-12 Thread P. J. McDermott
On 2012-06-08 23:49, P. J. McDermott wrote: > Then could you (or anyone else) suggest a way to handle "Build-Depends- > StageN" and "Build-Depends-Indep-StageN" fields for any values of "N"? > Any clues in this direction would be appreciated. I'll loo

Bug#661538: Add support for Build-Depends-Stage1 in order to allow breaking of cyclic Build-depends loops

2012-06-09 Thread P. J. McDermott
ckage ... I think the best way for dpkg-gencontrol to get this information is to parse DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS for it directly (rather than through a command-line option which would have to be given by debhelper and anything else that calls dpkg-gencontrol). [1]: http://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2012/

Bug#661538: Patch generalization and field to mark staged packages

2012-06-08 Thread P. J. McDermott
uld be appreciated. I'll look further through the code tomorrow to see if I can come up with anything. Thanks, -- P. J. McDermott(_/@\_),--. http://www.pehjota.net/ o< o o >

Bug#661538: Patch generalization and field to mark staged packages

2012-06-07 Thread P. J. McDermott
s. To this end, I propose the addition of a new "Build-Stage: N" (or similar) field. This would of course be added to %FIELDS in Dpkg::Control::Fields and be set (if "stage=N" is found in DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS) by dpkg-gencontrol. -- P. J. McDermott

Bug#661538: Add support for Build-Depends-Stage1 in order to allow breaking of cyclic Build-depends loops

2012-06-07 Thread P. J. McDermott
If there is indeed a case in which that isn't sufficient and a new stage is necessary as you propose, then yes, the stages must be renumbered in debian/control and debian/rules. -- P. J. McDermott(_/@\_),--. http://www.pehjota.net/