Re: Introducing Build-Recommends / Build-Core-Depends?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:57:10PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:36:46PM +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > So Build-Core-Depends would certainly be a better approach, but I wonder why
> > this isn't being called Build-Depends-Stage1 or similar?
> What about "Build-Minimal"? Shorter.
"Build-Minimal" doesn't capture the fact that we are talking about
dependencies. "Build-Depends-Minimal" would work, but is not actually
shorter than "Build-Depends-Stage1" and it is also not specific to
bootstrapping which was an argument Steve made against many other
So, if you think it's ok to leave out the words "Depends" and
"Recommends", the logical idea would be to use "Build-Stage1" (though I
do not think this is the correct route. I, personally, am in favor of