Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
- To: Debian developers list <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
- From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au>
- Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 21:08:39 +1100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20000901210839.F26079@ftoomsh.progsoc.uts.edu.au>
- Reply-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20000830221027.F5263@cistron.nl>; from wichert@cistron.nl on Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:27PM +0200
- References: <E13TMCD-0004SN-00@dual.intern.brederlow.de> <20000828121732.B17741@polya> <20000828153322.C12468@murphy.nl> <20000829004006.A24173@silly.cloud.net.au> <20000828182155.D6955@gaia.iki.fi> <20000829082216.A25268@silly.cloud.net.au> <20000830112157.B3362@xs4all.nl> <20000830221027.F5263@cistron.nl>
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
upon it.
> <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?
Anand
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: