Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?
Marcin Owsiany <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <firstname.lastname@example.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?
> I know build-depends is a good thing, but shouldn't the policy
> be changed then?
Hmm, it also says (in section 2.4.2): (emphasis mine)
Source packages _should_ specify which binary packages they require
to be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly.
_If_ build-time dependencies are specified, it _must_ be possible to
build the package and produce working binaries on a system with only
essential and build-essential packages installed and also those
required to satisfy the build-time relationships (including any
So officially, completely missing build-depends is a normal bug;
incomplete build-depends is RC.
Is this an inconsistency with the above quote from section 7.6, which
uses the word "may"?
Daniel Schepler "Please don't disillusion me. I
email@example.com haven't had breakfast yet."
-- Orson Scott Card