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

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: