Re: Is debhelper build-essential?
* Hamish Moffatt (firstname.lastname@example.org) [050114 00:45]:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:26:52PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:19:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Also of interest is that some 1300 packages would no longer need to
> > > declare a Build-Depends: at all with those changes, and another 1200
> > > wouldn't need to declare a Build-Depends-Indep:.
> > Not even versioned depends?
> Not if build-essential included a suitable versioned depends, like
> debhelper (>= 4). It already does that for gcc.
That would still mean a versioned dependency on build-essential.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C