Re: Is debhelper build-essential?
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:06:21PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.
Well, this has interesting consequences if you're building a C++ package
that also build-depends on random-c++-lib-dev, given that unstable's
build-essential depends on g++ (>= 3:3.3) and no C++ libraries in stable
could have been built against that ABI. I'm not sure there's a good answer
for this, really; many of the transitions Debian makes are decidedly one-way
in nature.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: