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

Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages

On Thu, Sep 02, 1999 at 11:13:59AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Are you saying that gcc should be Essential?
> Surely not in the quoted sentance ;-)

You suggested that essential packages should be buildable by essential
packages.  Now, I took that to mean binary-essential for both instances
of the word "essential".  You could have meant that binary-essential
packages must be buildable with build-essential packages.  I would
agree with that except on one point: build-essential packages cannot
be built by build-essential packages (assuming 1: gcc requires bison
and 2: bison is not considered build-essential), so the gain would be
very small.  In other words, the closure of the set of packages you need
to compile the set of binary-essential packages is not the union of the
two essential package sets, if I may use pseudomathematical jargon ;-)
And I believe the point of your crusade is to minimalize this closure.

> I would consider make, gcc/egcs (i.e. a
> compliant compiler of C code), binutils, to mention a few, as being pretty
> essential to the construction of almost any package.

The following is an excerpt from an accepted policy amendment (Bug#41232)
(the language was written by me, with help from Ian Jackson and some

+          <p>
+            It will not be necessary to explicitly specify build-time
+            relationships on a minimal set of packages that are always
+            needed to compile, link and put in a Debian package a
+            standard "Hello World!" program written in C or C++.  The
+            required packages are called <em/build-essential/, and an
+            informational list will be published separately from this
+            document.
+          </p>

So, yes, our definitions seem to be compatible.

%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

                             (John Cage)

Reply to: