Add dpkg-build-api (= 1) to the default build-deps

[Tachi107]

Closes: #289

[guillemj]

Thanks for the MR. I think this is good in general, but I'm not sure whether the golang packages will currently take much benefit from specifying the dpkg-build-api, given that at least two of the behavior changes for v1 are now the default, and the others might not apply to golang packages in the common case. My concern would be with introducing unnecessary churn.

In any case, this would be a +1 from me (in gerrit terms, as in "LGTM but someone else needs to approve with +2") given that I'm clearly biased here (from an implementer PoV), but if others think this is good and the churn is not a major concern, then let's go for it?

[Tachi107]

Hi Guillem, thanks for the review! I do agree that, right now, this does not change much for go packages in practice. My main motivation behind this is that, by being more widespread, the build API concept becomes more useful (as transitions and API changes become more doable in a non trivial amount of packages)

…

Il giorno 12 ago 2025, alle ore 17:20, Guillem Jover ***@***.***> ha scritto:  guillemj left a comment (Debian/dh-make-golang#290) Thanks for the MR. I think this is good in general, but I'm not sure whether the golang packages will currently take much benefit from specifying the dpkg-build-api, given that at least two of the behavior changes for v1 are now the default, and the others might not apply to golang packages in the common case. My concern would be with introducing unnecessary churn. In any case, this would be a +1 from me (in gerrit terms, as in "LGTM but someone else needs to approve with +2") given that I'm clearly biased here (from an implementer PoV), but if others think this is good and the churn is not a major concern, then let's go for it? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.

[ottok]

Motivations for this change seem reasonable after reading policy and dpkg-build-api man page as mentioned in #289. Approving, so it has +1 from me.

@guillemj Do you want to try approve as well so we can mimick the +1+2 functionality you longer from gerrit?

[guillemj]

@ottok As I tried to convey (but perhaps I was not clear) in my earlier comment, I feel I have a conflict of interests here, as the implementer of this feature in dpkg. So if the team is fine with the potential burden this might involve, I'm good with having this merged, but otherwise, this something I'd let the project at large adopt organically w/o any push from my side, that's why I mentioned the +1 (I'll give a thumbs up, which is the closes this maps to the gerrit semantics, where a +2 would be an approval that lets someone merge it). I'm thinking that perhaps this should be mentioned on the go-team mailing lists, in case some one has an issue with it?