Re: A problem with Build-Depends
email@example.com (Peter Palfrader) writes:
> > b) Are my Build-Depends simply silly? (I.e. is it safe to assume you've
> > got gcc and libc6-dev installed if you're building a package?)
> Read policy: You can assume essential: Yes packages and the
> build-essential package to be installed.
One other point, because it is clearly not obvious to everyone from the buildd
logs on ia64 and hppa...
You should *not* declare explicit build dependencies on things that are part
of the essential or build-essential lists.
The particular problem I'm dealing with right now is that a number of packages
have an explicit build-depends entry for "libstdc++2.10-dev". This is
build-essential (depended on by g++ which is on the list), and so does not
need to be listed. For architectures that are using newer gcc revisions, the
libstdc++ version has changed, and so this dependency will *never* be met.
Expect severity 'serious' bug reports to be filed when I get time for all the
ones like this I've tripped over.