Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:54:28AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > And isn't it a good idea to declare a build-dep even in this case?
> > proftpd would FTBS if libacl1-dev would drop its dependency on libattr1-dev.
> > Is there a commonly accepted rule on these particular cases?
> There is. If the package directly depends on libattr1-dev (this usually
> means it includes headers from libattr1-dev or links the library) then
> the build dependency should be specified in proftpd.
> If the package depends only indirectly on libattr1-dev, i.e. only
> because libacl1-dev depends on libattr1-dev, the dependency should not
> be specified.
> The rule of thumb you gave is the way to go:
> If proftpd FTBS after libacl1-dev drops the dependency on libattr1-dev,
> then it should build-depend on libattr1-dev, otherwise it shouldn't.
It seems to me that the only reason the libattr1-dev build dependency
was added was that libacl1-dev was missing the depends on libattr1-dev
and that proftpd was only using it indirectly. So the build dependency
shouldn't have been added.
See also #339786 and #341711 asking for the dependency to be added.