Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
On 31-Aug-00, 16:52 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think that you start with a particular version dependency, and then
> only update the dependency if you use new features not present in
> older helper packages.
This can be tricky, as it is easy to use a new feature without
realizing it, unless one digs through the changelog everytime one edits
debian/rules. Arguably, though, that's a reasonable cost for using the
helper package, so I'll concede.
> Actually, I do have versioned dependencies on dpkg-dev, and
> the process works as I outlined above -- older version of dpkg-dev
> broke for my packages, and I created a versioned dependency -- and
> have never had to change that, really.
That's fine -- if there is a need for the dependency, add it. But
forcing many developers to add a build-depends line solely in order to
specify "debhelper" seems unnecessary.
> Well, I think that these customers are so few, and need to be
> quite competent, often have to have a list of packages that goes
> beyon just the build essentials. We should not need a policy and a
> package for just these consumers.
The whole Build-Depends stuff originated from the need of the large
scale auto-builders and architecture porters to be able to reliably
> Our differences seem to stem from this basic difference in
> opinion: whom is the build essentials package primarily for? And my
> take is that the primary consumers are the developers of the 5000+
> packages, and additionally, a few buld daemons, most of whom need a
> core set that may not be reflected in build essentials. Your opinion,
> obviously, differs.
I think I miswrote earlier: I wrote "build-essentials" when I should
have written "Build-Depends". And I'd wager that the vast majority
of the Debian developers have no need at all for Build-Depends. The
"build-essentials" list *is* needed to prevent them from going crazy
*supporting* Build-Depends. But that's the only reason build-essentials
exists -- without Build-Depends, there's no need. And if the
auto-builder core set is not represented buy build-essentials, then I
think there's something wrong.
Note that I'm *not* saying Build-Depends is a bad thing: the porters do
a incredible job, and anything that makes their lives easier is worth
doing. But we ought to also minimize the cost to the other developers.
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org