Hi,
Quoting Ian Jackson (2015-08-24 13:18:22)
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Idea: rsync-based source format"):
> > It also ties the implentation of the format to the rsync tool,
> > because I assume we'd not want to reimplement it ourselves(?), and
> > keep in sync with upstream over time. And as such it would require
> > pulling rsync into the build-essential set practically forever,
> > because once there are such source packages around dpkg-source
> > should be able to at least extract them (well it could get demoted
> > to Recommends in case we switched to something else).
>
> I don't see that adding rsync to the build-essential set is a problem.
>
> rsync is extremely portable and has very limited build-dependencies.
> libacl and libattr are surely already in the needed-for-essential set,
> let alone needed-for-build-essential. I'm not sure whether libpopt is
> already in the needed-for-boostrap-to-build-essential set, but its
> only build dependencies are debhelper, dh-autoreconf, and gettext.
both, src:popt and src:rsync are part of the strong B-D-transitive essential
set, even when assuming that bootstrapping is done through crossbuilding
(m-a:foreign packages do not have to be compiled) and that arch:all packages do
not have to be rebuilt:
http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential.html
And here are reasons why both packages are part of the strong set:
http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential/y-u-b-d-transitive-essential/popt_1.16-10_n843.png
http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential/y-u-b-d-transitive-essential/rsync_3.1.1-3_n3613.png
cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature