On 16 April 2015 at 18:47, Felipe Sateler <fsateler at gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 April 2015 at 06:23, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 14:25 +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote: >>> On 16 April 2015 at 14:23, Tanu Kaskinen <tanu.kaskinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: >>> > On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 12:43 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: >>> >> But some reasons for installing packages explicitly: >>> >> >>> >> 1. Not in build-dep (git-core, check) >>> >> 2. Version upgrade after adding the trusty repositories. The build >>> >> failed if I didn't upgrade the autotools before building (not sure >>> >> why). >>> > >>> > So "apt-get build-dep" doesn't automatically upgrade all dependencies if >>> > they're already installed? And you didn't want to do a full system >>> > upgrade from 12.04 to 14.04. >>> > >>> >> 3. Me being lazy. dh-autoreconf is not used but I know it brings in >>> >> all the required deps for running autotools (we use that in the debian >>> >> package). >>> >> >>> >> Some pruning may be possible, but perhaps it is better to scrap the >>> >> build-dep and be explicit on what is depended upon. >>> > >>> > Having an explicit list of the build dependencies seems like the best >>> > way forward. >>> >>> I'm not a huge fan of this since we'd have to remember to update the >>> file each time deps change. Using the Ubuntu packaging deps seems more >>> pragmatic. >> >> Well, "apt-get build-dep" is great in theory, but it sounds like it may >> result in some dependencies coming from 12.04 and some from 14.04, >> because already-installed packages don't get updated, and according to >> Felipe, that already caused problems with autotools. What do you think >> would be the best way to solve this? > > I'd favor putting the whole list in the travis file. Advantages of doing so: > > 1. Tested documentation on required build dependencies. > 2. Installing manually instead of build-dep makes apt upgrade the > dependencies in question. Given that the base environment is 3 years > old, we should be doing this anyway. Unfortunately, a dist-upgrade is > not the best option for this since the environment is not quite > pristine (I tried this and it failed). > 3. No need to worry to keep in sync between what is in the ubuntu > package vs upstream. Ubuntu might have some options disabled due to > core/non-core distinctions (I believe that is why libweb-rtc is not > enabled in ubuntu) or simply because the ubuntu release is too old. > > Also, we can just pick up the base from the ubuntu package so it is > not much extra work either. Okay, I'm game to go with this approach and see how it goes. -- Arun
