Re: possible MBF: automatically detecting unused build dependencies

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@debian.org>]

On Mon, 07 Jul 2014, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> MBF template email:
> 
> --%<---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Please consider removing the build dependencies on $foo, $bar and $baz
> Severity: wishlist
> Usertag: unusedbd
> User: bootstrap@lists.debian.org
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> the build dependencies $foo, $bar and $baz of this source package do not seem
> to be needed. Neither are any of their files accessed during the build nor are
> their dependencies on other binary packages required. Please consider dropping
> those build dependencies to make bootstrapping Debian easier.
> 
> You can find more detail about the procedures that were used to find this
> problem in the MBF announcement on debian-devel: $email
> -->%---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't assume that the unused build dependency is always where the
defect is.  Rather, the MBF text should account for the possibility that the
unused build-dependency should have been used in the first place, but
something is broken in the build and it is being left unused.

For example: something that is uselessly build-depending on autotools-dev
might either:

1. Have an useless build-dependency

or

2. Have a bug that is causing autoreconf to either not be called in the
   first place, or to fail to refresh the auto-tooling.


While (1) is more likely, ignoring the possibility of (2) is not wise.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh