On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:30:35 +0800 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> wrote: > > > Do you like the idea or not? > > Seems reasonable. Not to me. dpkg-dev is usually all that's needed in my experience, when setting up a new build environment. lintian and pbuilder are also common. Thereagain, cross-building toolchains for armel are also common on my build systems, so it's not going to be sane to make a single dependency chain for such systems. There would need to be NO reverse dependencies of this -dev meta package, especially build-dependencies! > > Should something added to or removed from the dependency list? > > devscripts (only if all the Recommends are turned off - devscripts inside a chroot with Recommends on is a complete nightmare) > the various vcs-buildpackage scripts No, *selected* buildpackage wrappers maybe - there's no point bringing in every possible tool. > sbuild > schroot ? Neither is actually necessary for building or even general development. pbuilder maybe. > signing-party (for caff) Not related to building or development. > lintian > valgrind > gdb > cppcheck > pyflakes > perlcritic > <more static analysis tools> If it's going that far, then you'll need an editor or IDE as well and then it's getting beyond the pale. > Please make most of the dependencies recommends so that people can > easily pick and choose what they want installed. Everything except dpkg-dev and lintian should be Recommends and most of the ones above should be Suggests IMHO. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpnbTkTV6Jal.pgp
Description: PGP signature