Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
> IMHO, we will have to name specific packages. However, unlike Roman,
> I hesitate to provide a huge default set. "make" of course sounds
> reasonable, "dpkg-dev" anyway, but "texinfo" not. texinfo *was* in
> the tetex packages, and I had some trouble to compile some packages
> on the Hurd before I had tex :) [I used texinfo from the GNU source
> though, which worked fine]
I believe everybody understood this wrong :-) I Just wanted to show an
**EXAMPLE**, namely what the central system currently considers
build-essential. I (hope that I) showed that the differences where
only stuff introduced for my convenience: perl, texinfo, and
debhelper/debmake. I've made those essential only to avoid cluttering
up the manual dependencies. To repeat: I did not propose to add them
to the list we may or may not write into policy...
> > In my opinion, we should ban dependencies on source packages in the Policy
> > (although I'm not proposing that yet).
>
> Yes, this is something to consider.
Yes!! If a build uses something outside its own source tree, this
seems somewhat broken. The stuff that's needed should go into -dev
packages. The new tcl8.0-dev shows that this is doable.
BTW, FYI: currently those packages depend on source trees:
blt8.0-unoff => *TCL80-SOURCE, *TK80-SOURCE
blt8.0 => *TCL80-SOURCE, *TK80-SOURCE
expect => *TCL80-SOURCE
gs => *LIBJPEG-SOURCE
gs-aladdin => *LIBJPEG-SOURCE
roxen => *PIKE-SOURCE
tclx => *TCL76-SOURCE, *TK42-SOURCE
tk4.2 => *TCL76-SOURCE
tkstep8.0 => *TCL80-SOURCE, *TK80-SOURCE
tnt => *AX25UTIL-SOURCE
The Tcl/Tk source tree deps can be removed by properly using the new
data tcl8.0-dev provides. gs and gs-alladin maybe could include the
needed libjpeg code. And ax25-utils should export its stuff into a
-dev package.
> "Indirect dependencies are evil, don't depend on them. If you do, we
> wil come and hurt you." :)
>
> I think we don't need to add this to the proposal. Roman just wanted
> to make us aware of something that follows directly from the word
> Dependency in the abstract sense (IMO).
It maybe follows directly for you, but if you don't stress it
explicitly, many people will forget this consequence... :-)
Roman
Reply to: