Closed Rowern closed 6 years ago
These changes are to make it a more standard-dev package.
As I understand it, the old behavior of listing all build-depends as dependencies of the -dev package was a bug, and was not consistent with standard packaging practices. For example, libsodium-dev
only depends on libsodium
. Is there a specific dependency that you think is being inappropriately omitted?
It's also not standard practice for -dev packages to contain sources, though this doesn't appear to have changed in these package versions:
# dpkg -i hhvm-dev_3.21.3~xenial_amd64.deb
... lots of warnings about not having main hhvm package installed ...
# find /usr/include/hphp -type f ! -name '*.h'
# find /usr/include/hphp -type f -name '*.h' | wc -l
4532
# apt-get remove -y hhvm-dev
# dpkg -i hhvm-dev_3.21.4~xenial_amd64.deb
... lots of warnings about not having main hhvm package installed ...
# find /usr/include/hphp -type f ! -name '*.h'
# find /usr/include/hphp -type f -name '*.h' | wc -l
4224
Can you give specific examples of files that you think should be included and are now not?
is there a way to mimic the install of the previous dev package for the new version?
We should now be publishing source packages, and it sounds like that might be what you want instead:
To do what you asked (not recommended): Edit the dependencies on https://github.com/hhvm/packaging/blob/master/debian-9-stretch/debian/control#L86 to include all build-depends (Xenial currently shares files with stretch), and then follow the instructions in the README to rebuild.
Previously the hhvm-dev package (3.21.3~xenial) had these dependencies:
Now the "new" hhvm-dev package (3.21.4-1~xenial) has these dependencies:
Also, I does not seem that the sources are put inside the
/usr/include/hphp/
directory.My solution is to freeze my package to hhvm-dev 3.21.3 but is it an intended modification of the dev package and if so is there a way to mimic the install of the previous dev package for the new version?