Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2015-08-24 13:18:22) > Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Idea: rsync-based source format"): > > It also ties the implentation of the format to the rsync tool, > > because I assume we'd not want to reimplement it ourselves(?), and > > keep in sync with upstream over time. And as such it would require > > pulling rsync into the build-essential set practically forever, > > because once there are such source packages around dpkg-source > > should be able to at least extract them (well it could get demoted > > to Recommends in case we switched to something else). > > I don't see that adding rsync to the build-essential set is a problem. > > rsync is extremely portable and has very limited build-dependencies. > libacl and libattr are surely already in the needed-for-essential set, > let alone needed-for-build-essential. I'm not sure whether libpopt is > already in the needed-for-boostrap-to-build-essential set, but its > only build dependencies are debhelper, dh-autoreconf, and gettext. both, src:popt and src:rsync are part of the strong B-D-transitive essential set, even when assuming that bootstrapping is done through crossbuilding (m-a:foreign packages do not have to be compiled) and that arch:all packages do not have to be rebuilt: http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential.html And here are reasons why both packages are part of the strong set: http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential/y-u-b-d-transitive-essential/popt_1.16-10_n843.png http://bootstrap.debian.net/essential/y-u-b-d-transitive-essential/rsync_3.1.1-3_n3613.png cheers, josch
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature