Re: Should -dev packages providing .pc files depend on pkg-config?
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 18:20:56 +0200, Bernhard R Link <brlink@debian.org> said:
> * Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> [080407 10:16]:
>> > It's not the dev package's responsibility to ensure
>> > gcc/g++/binutils are installed, I beleive the same applies to
>> > pkg-config.
>>
>> It sounds like you're suggesting to add pkg-config to
>> build-essential? Because that's the reason that the -dev package
>> doesn't depend on them.
> Here I have to contradict. No -dev package should ever depend on a
> compiler or linker, even if that tool was not already in
> build-essentials.
Can you provide some rationale for this assertion? I can see why
one might not tie the development tool very strongly with a particular
compiler or compiler version, to allow a developer to use it with an
alternative development tool, but I can see why one may want to depend
on a generic foo-lang-compiler-or-interpreter virtual package.
There is obviously a trade off here -- the need to the
development package to be useful on installation, by ensuring that the
tools required to use the package are also installed, versus the need
to allow people to use the package with alternate developer tools. Ar
there other considerations and use cases you have in mind?
I see recommends as a middle ground between a depends and a
suggestions; can you articulate why this middle ground is unaceptable,
as you assert above?
manoj
--
Ah, sweet Springtime, when a young man lightly turns his fancy over!
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: