Op ma, 27-06-2005 te 15:45 +0200, schreef Ondrej Sury: > On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 15:35 +0200, Arjan Oosting wrote: > > As it is nowhere forbidden in the policy and I use CDBS to generate > > debian/control from debian/control.in (not a build-time though) and CDBS > > adds the reference to build-essential in the Build-Depends, I am > > inclined to leave build-essential in the Build-Depends list. > > That's not true. CDBS don't add build-essential to Build-Depends. > (Maybe you can tell CDBS to mangle Build-Depends, but I even don't know > how to do it :-). If you use DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_DEBIAN_CONTROl in your debian/rules, CDBS will generate debian/control from your debian/control.in. When CDBS does this it replaces @cdbs@ with something like cdbs (>= 0.4.23-1.1), debhelper (>= 4.1.0), patchutils (>= 0.2.25) depending on which features of cdbs you use. Some packages use the @cdbs@ replacement other packages don't, such as libgnome, but if you do then build-essential is added to your build-depends line. Maybe some of the CDBS developers can explain why build-essential is added in the first place? But whether or not this is a good feature of CDBS, the real question is whether build dependencies on build-essential are only allowed when they are versioned? Greetings Arjan Oosting
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part