Re: Is debhelper build-essential?
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 17:21:38 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Frank Küster
> | That's correct from the point of view of a buildd, or of a developer
> | running a sid machine. But it is not correct for backporters: Imagine
> | that packages are added to build-essential, or versioned dependencies in
> | it are bumped to a higher version number. Then a package without
> | Build-Dependencies, or with Build-Dependencies that can be fulfilled in
> | stable, might still not build in a stable environment.
> Which is why build-essential in sarge would be updated to depend on
> debhelper now, so packages in etch could get rid of debhelper build-deps.
> People backporting from unstable to oldstable are on their own, but I
> think that's ok and not a very interesting use-case.
I'm confused. One making backports from sid to woody should backport a
package in such a way that it is buildable with woody's build-essential.
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.