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

Re: Is debhelper build-essential?

On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:21 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:

> * Frank Küster 
> | That's correct from the point of view of a buildd, or of a developer
> | running a sid machine. But it is not correct for backporters: Imagine
> | that packages are added to build-essential, or versioned dependencies in
> | it are bumped to a higher version number. Then a package without
> | Build-Dependencies, or with Build-Dependencies that can be fulfilled in
> | stable, might still not build in a stable environment.
> Which is why build-essential in sarge would be updated to depend on
> debhelper now, so packages in etch could get rid of debhelper
> build-deps.  People backporting from unstable to oldstable are on
> their own, but I think that's ok and not a very interesting use-case.
I don't believe build-essential has this +1 requirement ... if you're
building a package from any distribution, you need to meet the
build-essential requirements of *that* distribution; not the
distribution you're currently running.

In effect, if you're building unstable packages on stable, the first
thing you should build is unstable's build-essential.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: