Re: Source Dependencies, a real solution

[Ben Collins <bmc@it.larc.nasa.gov>]

On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 at 10:12:46AM -0500, Brandon Mitchell wrote:
> I'd agree with the "Build-Depends" name.  Also, what if it just prints a
> note whenever it reads a "Source-Depends".  Then if someone wants to add
> the feature later on, the place is there and the specs have already been
> defined.  I assume you are just printing a warning if a "Build-Depends"
> isn't satisified.

If it finds the "Source|Build-Depends" field, it atleast prints "checking
source dependencies" (will change to build dependencies). If nothing is
wrong then it prints nothing further. If there is no field, then it
happily continues without skipping a beat or giving notice. As I said
before, I am of the opinion that the field should be voluntary and not
required (although bug reports could be filed if some one feels it is
needed for as certain package).

-- 
-----    -- - -------- --------- ----  -------  -----  - - ---   --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov>                  Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc.                 bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - -------   ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation