On Thu, 26 May 2011 23:16:08 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > The problem might be that the set of packages is not > > > trivial/uncontroversial; I'm not sure I need cdbs (or cmake), I've > > > never heard about bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also > > > svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage, and maybe dh-make) ... So > > > yes, the idea is interesting, but the selection of packages might > > > need some consideration :) > True, but I don't see the controversy here as being more controversial > than other choices we already have to make in the archive, such as the > "Recommends" line of devscripts. > So, if introducing the meta-package is OK (and I can hardly see any > drawback in introducing it), the package will have a maintainer which > will decide upon its (weak) dependencies. Definitively. I was just throwing in some quick brainstorming ideas. > > Then let's put the uncontroversial into Depends, the common (this > > needs discussion) into Recommends and the others into Suggests. > Indeed. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - PGP/GPG key ID: 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Supertramp: You Win, I Lose
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature