Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:27PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Richard Braakman wrote:
> > I don't know how the decision ended up being made, but the argument
> > I presented at the time is that a dependency on debhelper is far more
> > likely to be versioned than the others are. A package that makes use
> > of a new feature of debhelper is going to have to declare its own
> > build-depends anyway.
Likewise a package that makes use of a particular feature of dpkg-dev.
But it is listed in the dependancy line of build-essential. What you are
saying is that rather than file bug reports on the (I assume) small set
of packages whic require a particular feature/verion of debhelper it
makes more sense to force everyone who uses it to declare a build-dependancy
> <aol>Very much agreed, excellent point</aol>
> Wichert (who has grown very tired of debhelper changes making building
> security fixes a painful job at times)
Presumably you also get just as tired when dpkg-dev changes happen but
the maintainer has not declared a version dependancy, yes?
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org