Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?
email@example.com (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Bdale Garbee <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.