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

Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?

tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.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.

I'd be tempted to agree with you, except...

I've spent quite a bit of time recently dealing with packages that include an
explicit build dependency on "libstdc++2.10-dev".  This is not necessary since
it is a dependency for an item in build-essential, and is in fact called out 
explicitly in the build-essential documentation.  It breaks the ability to 
build the package with gcc-3.0.  That will matter to everyone eventually, and 
matters to hppa and ia64 right now.

Admittedly, a dependency on, say, 'gzip' is less likely to cause problems in 
the future than the libstdc++ thing... but I'd rather see people craft 
Build-Depends correctly and minimally.


Reply to: