On Sunday, August 21, 2011 11:06:35 PM Fernando Lemos wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Paul Elliott > > <pelliott@blackpatchpanel.com> wrote: > > I quote from Debian Library Packaging guide > > > >> 2. -DEV package dependencies > >> > >> The -DEV package would usually declare Depends: relationship on all -DEV > >> packages for libraries that the library package directly depends upon, > >> with the specific SONAME version that the library package is linked > >> against. This includes libc-dev. [5] > > > > Does this mean that if my library has an include reference > > #include <stdio.h> > > in one of its .c or .h files, then my -dev package must have a depends > > line like this in its debian/control file: > > Depends: OTHER-STUFF, libc6-dev > > > > If that is the case, how come the the debian/control file > > for libtar_1.2.11-6 does not list such a dependancy? > > it includes <stdio.h>. > > You don't need to list explicity build-depend on anything already > provided by build-essential. According to the policy[1]: > > Build-dependencies on "build-essential" binary packages can be omitted. > > There's even a lintian check for that. It's probably a bad idea to > build depend on libc6-dev directly. > Why then would they explicitly mention that the policy includes libc-dev? > >> against. This includes libc-dev. [5] Surely they knew that libc-dev was in build-essential? I don't understand why they wrote what they did? -- Paul Elliott 1(512)837-1096 pelliott@BlackPatchPanel.com PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J http://www.free.blackpatchpanel.com/pme/ Austin TX 78758-3117
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.