[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?

On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:13:37AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> > > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <epg@debian.org>
> > >   95263  missing build dependency
> > The policy says:
> >       A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
> >       on a binary package.
> > Then why is missing build dependency considered an RC bug?

Entirely missing build-dependencies are not RC bugs. Incorrect
build-dependences are. That is, if you say
	Build-Depends: foo, bar
but you actually need bar-dev, or also need baz, then that's an RC
bug. If you actually just needed foo, that's not.

The autobuilders can cope with missing build-dependencies (they have a
list of which packages build-depend on which other packages from before
the build-depends: field existed), and correct build-depends: lines.
Anything else makes the builds die.

> Some 3.x policy version added build dependencies.  If your package follows
> said policy, then it must have correct build dependencies.  Note, that said
> policy version itself is not mandatory.

This is not correct. All packages have to follow current policy: if they
miss out on most issues, that's a bug, if they miss some other issues,
that's an RC bug. It doesn't matter what Standards-Version they claim.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpaPFAy9FJ9h.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: