Re: Updating build-essential package list

[jerome@IDEALX.com (Jérôme Marant)]

Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> writes:
 
> Have you read the current definition of build-essential?

Yes, I did.

> 
>      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++.

And I still don't understand why it is C and C++ related only.

>      
> How would you change this so that it is still unambiguous and it includes
> debhelper?  (Please don't even consider mentioning debhelper explicitly.)

Please consider that I don't want a revolution in the policy.
To my mind, build-essential packages should be packages that are required by
a large amount of packages to build, avoiding including them again and again in
Build-Depends* fields.

> 
> -- 
> %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 
> 

-- 
Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@IDEALX.com>

 -----------------------------------------------------------
| IDEALX - Open Source Engineering / Ingénierie Open Source |
| http://IDEALX.com                                         |
 -----------------------------------------------------------