Re: Introducing Build-Recommends / Build-Core-Depends?
* Carsten Hey (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110815 14:36]:
> * Andreas Barth [2011-08-15 13:46 +0200]:
> > * Carsten Hey (email@example.com) [110815 13:36]:
> > > An optional "Build-Depends:" field per binary package as you described
> > > is essentially the same as the following, with the notable difference,
> > > that the below could appear as it is in the output of, i.e., apt-cache
> > > showsrc without requiring maintainers of all those packages to invent
> > > a new syntax just to enable users and developers to look up information.
> > >
> > > Build-Depends[foo-stage1]: debhelper
> > > Build-Depends[foo-stage2]: debhelper, libx11-dev
> > > Build-Depends: debhelper, libx11-dev, libgnome2-dev
> > No, it's not.
> > There is an really large difference: This here means the maintainer
> > needs to write down by hand what the path to build the package is.
> There seems to be a misunderstanding, caused by choosing an unfortunate
> example, here is an other one:
> Source: emacs23
> Build-Depends: gnome, kde, ncurses-dev
> Build-Depends[emacs23-nox]: ncurses-dev
That's just re-ordering the way the entries are specified. I don't
mind either way, but I'd consider it more natural to have it at the