Re: Keeping information on the build system
On Fri, Oct 12, 2001 at 12:55:28AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Yann Dirson wrote:
> > > What if I just want to build, say, debconf (which really build depends on
> > > nothing in build-essential except make and dpkg-dev), and I didn't
> > > really feel like installing a useless C compiler to do it.
> > Right. But that problably just means that the set of build-essential
> > packages is wrongly defined.
> > I think it would make sense to separate it into Build-Essential and
> > Build-Essential-Indep. That appears to give the exact result you
> > describe.
> That was just an example. Here's another one:
> What if I want to build, say, bsdgames (which really build depends on
> nothing in build-essential except make and dpkg-dev and gcc), and I
I suppose you forget libc-dev - I don't think there are enough cases
where gcc is useful without it to care about them.
> didn't really feel like installing a useless C++ compiler [etc]
Curiously I thought about the g++ case somewhere in the evening :)
I was wondering why it was there at all...
So there remains make and dpkg-dev, which are in used by virtually all
packages - I have secret plans to push for jam instead of make some
day but that's another story :) - and gcc.
gcc is maybe not used by all packages, but I think it's reasonable to
think it will be present on any development box, even when the focus
is on compiling some language that does not really require it.
OTOH, we could take the approach of listing in build-essential the
tools that are most commonly used so that everyone does not have to
list them, and allow maintainers to specify a Build-Unused list of
build-essential packages not in use.
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
Debian-related: <email@example.com> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
Pro: <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratuity
http://ydirson.free.fr/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>