On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 09:14:09PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > I would also like to remind you that we need both
> > essential and build-essential, and all of there
> > dependencies.
> In that case you'll have to fill in the list of essential packages as
> well, at least for the moment. Just extend the varible buildessentials
> accordingly at the beginning of add-sources.py.
>
> What do you mean by "their dependencies" ?
I don't see any way out to this issue when considering only packages
metadata.
IMO, the right solution is twisted upside down: instead of adding
knowledge into edos-builddebcheck about which packages are
build-essential (which induces the problems of keeping the info
synchronized and also the one being discussed here), let's have
edos-builddebcheck users tell it which packages are *currently*
installed as unavoidable build dependencies.
Practically, this can work two ways: we can have edos-builddebcheck
query the dpkg database for installed packages (and their relationships,
since they are not granted to be in sync with the APT database), or we
can add an option pointing to a file which lists packages which are
known to be forcibly installed.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature