Re: Library packages depending on data files

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2004 at 02:44:36PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:

> Moin Adrian!

Hi Eduard!

>...
> > That's similar to the situation with people demanding making it easy for 
> > backporters:
> > Packages in unstable must be suitable for unstable. It's nice if the 
> > maintainer makes backporting easy, but if it's hard to backport a 
> > package that is only the problem of the person doing the backport and 
> > not a fault of the maintainer.
> 
> I can share only parts of your opinion. IMHO the best way would be to
> introduce different Build-Dependencies, since Build-Deps are often
> (mis)used to enforce transitions in Sid. There should be something like
> Build-Depends-Min where the maintainer specifies the really neccessary
> dependencies (eg. add gcc (>> 3) to Build-Deps and omit it in
> Build-Depends-Min).
>...

Unless the maintainer backports himself, your suggested 
Build-Depends-Min would often not be strict enough.

My experience with backporting is that even the normal build 
dependencies are often not strict enough.

As a last point:

lintian lists 303 packages with 
  package-lacks-versioned-build-depends-on-debhelper

Consider that this is something lintian gives an error for, and that
this is at least technically RC.

This is current state of the normal build dependencies - do you assume 
your suggested Build-Depends-Min were in a better state?

> MfG,
> Eduard.

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed