Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
- To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
- From: cjw44@flatline.org.uk (Colin Watson)
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 14:06:10 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] E13Y6oE-0005DO-00@localhost>
- In-reply-to: <20000829120823.A11158@gaia.iki.fi>
- References: <E13TMCD-0004SN-00@dual.intern.brederlow.de> <20000829080203.I6955@gaia.iki.fi> <20000829092919.A5724@murphy.nl> <20000829120823.A11158@gaia.iki.fi>
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> wrote:
>On 20000829T092919+0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>> Really? I doubt that the package "build-essential" (to name a
>> random example :-) needs the C compiler.
>
>You misread me (or did I express my badly?). I mean that "there exists
>at least one program such that for all Debian developers, if said Debian
>developer packages said program, a C compiler is needed". The same does
>not hold for debhelper, since all programs *can* be packaged without
>debhelper.
>
>I'm trying here to assert that there exists a package for which a C
>compiler is essential for building. This is, IMHO, a necessary (but
>not sufficient) condition for build-essentiality.
In addition to the definition, would a useful rule of thumb in arguments
about "build-essentiality" be that the lists of essential and
build-essential packages together comprise a minimal set of packages
central to the Debian system [1] among which circular build dependencies
are acceptable?
[1] This is a kludge; I'm trying to avoid having my description include
compilers for other languages which depend on themselves to build,
but which are sufficiently rarely used that making them
build-essential would be foolish.
--
Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: