[Pkg-systemd-maintainers] Bug#738319: Bug#738319: Bug#738319: systemd: Patch to bootstrap without gobject-introspection or cryptsetup

[Daniel Schepler]

On Sunday, February 09, 2014 04:20:07 PM Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Michael Biebl <biebl at debian.org> writes:
> > I'm a bit puzzled by that patch:
> > 
> > Don't you need to mark the (optional) build-dependencies as such?
> > I don't see anything in the patch touch debian/control though.
> > 
> > Could you elaborate how this is supposed to work?
> 
> I looked at a couple of other patches before merging this, and the
> common theme was that the changes to debian/rules came first, and
> debian/control will be touched later. I think this is/was due to the
> fact that the debian/control changes were not standardized at the
> point. I am not sure about the current status, i.e. whether it’s
> safe/wise to change d/control yet.

Right, currently the way to specify that would be to make Build-Depends 
something like:

Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 9), pkg-config, xsltproc, docbook-xsl,
  docbook-xml, gtk-doc-tools, m4, dh-autoreconf, automake (>= 1.11),
  autoconf (>= 2.63), intltool, gperf, libcap-dev, libpam0g-dev, libaudit-dev,
  libdbus-1-dev (>= 1.3.2), libglib2.0-dev (>= 2.22.0),
  libcryptsetup-dev (>= 2:1.4.2) <!profile.stage1>, libwrap0-dev,
  libselinux1-dev (>= 2.1.9), libacl1-dev, libattr1-dev, liblzma-dev,
  libgcrypt11-dev, libkmod-dev (>= 5), libblkid-dev (>= 2.20),
  libgirepository1.0-dev (>= 1.31.1) <!profile.stage1>,
  gobject-introspection (>= 1.31.1) <!profile.stage1>, python-dev,
  libglib2.0-doc

But since that new syntax is not backwards compatible with stable's dpkg and 
apt, we won't be able to actually upload packages using that syntax until at 
least after jessie's release.  So in the meantime, I'm submitting patches with 
just the debian/rules changes, leaving out the debian/control changes.
-- 
Daniel Schepler