Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:29:20PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <email@example.com> writes:
> > It isn't *quite* that simple. Explicit build dependencies should only be
> > for packages that are neither essential nor build-essential.
> But it's entirely harmless to mention them; this is an area where it's
> better to err on the side of liberality than frugality.
Not always. libc6, for example, is libc6.1 on Alpha. I'm sure the
Hurd people have a few of their own examples. Since all the essential*
and build-essential packages are listed in the build-essential
package, it's easy to check if you aren't sure.
* The essentials list is a little old, and it includes ldso and update,
which apparently aren't build-essential anymore. Bug-report time . . .
David Starner - firstname.lastname@example.org
Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org
"I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and
laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg