Re: Source dependencies: are we ready?
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:41:00AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
>
> I've eliminated the tetex-bin dependency, BTW. bzip2 hadn't occurred
> to me as a dependency, but I guess it is. What else? patch? We need
> to discuss what's build-essential anyway. Here's a start:
>
> libc-dev
> gcc
> g++
> libstdc++-dev
> patch
> make
> dpkg-dev
> binutils
> bison
According to the proposal, anything that is required for building a simple
"Hello World" .c and .cc is an assumed dependency. Since dpkg-dev is also
an assumed dependency, and it deps on make/patch/diff, those are probably
assumed too. That just leaves bison as a possible, but I'm not sure.
Should dpkg-dev possibly depend on anything we consider to be "assumed"
for build dependencies?
Ben
Reply to: