Re: Source dependencies: are we ready?
> He means have that as an ability, but I don't see that as relevant
> to what we *need* for source depends to be useful.
Yep :-)
> As an aside, I don't think the present dpkg-buildpackage is a
> suitable platform for dependency checking, being that it's only a
> shell script.
This was my idea, too. I'm currently at writing a longer mail with
some thoughts about this.
> I've eliminated the tetex-bin dependency, BTW.
Ah, no more readlink calls? Fine, deleting it...
> bzip2 hadn't occurred to me as a dependency, but I guess it is.
Yep, it's needed by tar xIf ... you use to unpack the tarballs.
> What else? patch?
Yep, but that's build-essential, as it's already used by dpkg-source.
Other dependencies I have registered: gettext and time. gettext is
pretty ok, time is a bit unusual but no problem.
> libc-dev
> gcc
> g++
> libstdc++-dev
> patch
> make
> dpkg-dev
> binutils
> bison
Please not bison, it's too specific. My additions (all essential anyway):
fileutils
shellutils
dpkg
Roman
Reply to: