Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato
cjw44@flatline.org.uk (Colin Watson) writes:
>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.
I have a simpler view: the Build-Depends line should name the
"unusual" packages a developer should have installed to build a given
package (especially the packages that conflict with something, so that
the developer may not want them installed all the time). The
"build-essential" list should list the "standard" tools, so that the
vast majority of packages need no Build-Depends entry. It also makes
Debian more modular. When a package (say, debhelper) splits, who
wants to require 1700 packages to update their Build-Depends lines?
Much better to record the change in only one place.
Anyone who sets out to build a lot of packages without first
installing debhelper and debmake is just asking for trouble.
- Jim Van Zandt
Reply to: