Re: packaging-dev meta package
Michael Banck <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:20:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > > Recommends or Suggests:
>> > > cdbs
>> > > cmake
>> > My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't
>> > interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, so coming across packages
>> > still using it will be common for a while. CMake is a corollary to
>> > autoconf and heavily used in KDE-land, which seems like a
>> > not-insignificant number of packages.
>> But in both cases, those should be pulled in as build-depends, no?
Isn't this supposed to be a "give me everything I might need" meta
package for people that want to start a new package or debianize
something new? In that case they won't have any Build-Depends yet.
Or for setting up a developement chroot for use with many packages. To
get a suitable starting point so that not every single user will have to
send in a "Please install foo" request.
> Well, I think it is worthwhile to be able to modify and build source
> packages without having to install the full Build-Depends. Do you
> usually need to have cmake installed to run the clean target? If so,
> that might be a reason to include it.
Then don't install this package. I don't think it unlikely someone would
want to write/work on a package that uses cmake. Just like other people
would write/work on a package that uses automake. They might not need
cmake/automake all the time but they will most of the time.