Re: Two theses regarding packages
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 03:50:26PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> 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
I've thought about it. Maintaining build depends under the current
system is a royal pain. The requisite dependencies aren't immediately
obvious, the specific dependency line required to fill a particular
dependency is often poorly documented, and it seems that the biggest
problem comes with packages that, by rights, should be part of the
default build environemnt. (E.g., perl)
--
Mike Stone
Reply to: