Re: Two theses regarding packages
On 06-Jun-01, 15:47 (CDT), Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> A "let's wait until only 200 packages are missing build
> dependencies" approach misses e.g. one important thing: Some
> maintainers start thinking about removing the build dependencies
> from their packages - why shall I have build dependencies in my
> packages when they only cause RC bugs because of missing build
> dependencies?
Do you actually have an example of someone who has done this, or
even seriously considered it? (I'm not interested in knowing who,
just whether this is an actual problem or some hypothetical you've
come up with. And yes, I have followed all the recent discussion in
debian-policy regarding this general topic.)
My opinion: A maintainer who reacted this way is so obviously at odds
with the Social Contract and the general spirit of Debian that they
need to find something else to do. It's no harder to correct the
build-depends than it is to remove it (because presumably the bug report
lists the missing package). Having a high priority bug against your
package is not an attack on your ego, it's simply something that needs
to be fixed.
To sum up: if your example is a real problem, the problem is NOT policy,
the problem is the maintainer.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)
Reply to: