Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
On 30-Aug-00, 12:51 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 20000830T112651-0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > That's pretty much the definition (or at least the *use*) of
> > Build-Essential: packages that may be assumed to be present, so that
> > they need not be listed in Build-Depends.
> It's not the definition.
Which is why I hedged with "pretty much" and "*use*". :-)
> One of the explicit design goals for the current
> setup was that policy should not need to mention specific packages.
Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three
different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to
find out what I could leave out of by "Build-Depends" stanza. It would
*much* easier for developers, if less ideologically pure, to just list
the damn packages on the Developers Corner part of the website.
And yes, I followed the discussion and reasons. I didn't disagree at the
time, but when the time came to use it, it was severely annoying.
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)