Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 09:32:22PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> I realize that these would be in the first stanza of the control
> file, and therefore don't technically conflict with the binary
> Depends/Conflicts fields, but I think it's going to lead to a lot
> of confusion, particularly for new maintainers.
Here we have a conflict between your sense of aesthetics and mine - I'm a
minimalist, when it comes to designing interfaces. I doubt we'll be able to
agree on this one ;-)
In my opinion Depends is conceptually the same field in both build-time
dependencies and in ordinary dependencies. Their syntax is the same, and
their semantics is almost the same. Both intend to make sure that the
package is "usable". The only difference in semantics comes from the fact
that the meaning of "usable" is different: for source packages, it is
"buildable".
In fact, the biggest problem I had with previous proposals, when I looked at
the archives, was that they invented a new base field. We don't name the
Section/Priority fields Src-Section or Src-Priority, either.
And as to new maintainers, I've seen a few posts in -mentors where people
ask about simple Unix commands (in the context of packaging, of course).
They Just Will Have To Learn(tm), as we all did.
What do others think?
> Why not name them Src-Depends, Src-Indep-Depends, etc.
I might be persuaded to use Build-Depends or Source-Depends etc, but
Src-Depends is IMHO Just Too Ugly(tm).
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
"... memory leaks are quite acceptable in many applications ..."
(Bjarne Stroustrup, The Design and Evolution of C++, page 220)
Reply to: