[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Source dependencies


	In the past I have seen people object to manually created
 source dependencies (in favor of automatically generated ones), but I
 don't see how this is any worse than the current situation with
 binary dependencies (the only automation we have is determination of
 the shared libraries). I'm all for source dependencies.

	Why should the source dependencies not be recorded in the
 deb-control file? I rarely have the dsc files for packages on my
 machine; but I invariably have a good copy of the available
 packages. A single line bloat of the package description is not such
 a bad idea.

	Secondly, I use dpkg-buildpackage, and hence never generate my
 dsc file by hand, I do have full control over the control file.
 Putting the field in the control file would have less impact on the
 package build process. 

	When it comes to building packages (where source dependencies
 have a role), I think a different set of packages than the Essential
 set are required.

	Remember, The Essential packages are designed to be those that
 give you a minimal set of packages so your machine is up and may
 further install packages, it is not and should not be overloaded to
 label the set of packages that are required for you to be able to
 build packages.

	The compiler and C libraries belong to the latter set, and not
 the formaer. Is there a requirement for this label to be part of the
 control file? Can we not have a list of Devel-Essential packages,
 like we do Virtual packages, and use that as a base to start a build
 (on a new architecture maybe, or part of a make World scenario).


 Capital Punishment: The income tax. --anonymous
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com

Reply to: