Re: Build dependencies: some thoughts
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:17:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> It's not easy. In fact it's *really* not easy.
It is easy. I've specified build-time dependencies on some of my packages
for months now. You just happened to try a nasty case as your first.
> Standard packages: dpkg-dev, lynx, make
> Now these should need listing, as they are not marked essential.
dpkg-dev and make are obviously build-essential.
> Firstly, that if we are now demanding build-time dependencies, we are
> asking maintainers to do a *lot* of work. (This took me about 2
> hours, maybe a little bit more.)
As I said, this package is complicated. For my packages, it has been
almost trivial to list the few build-time dependencies.
> Thirdly, of the packages listed, dpkg-dev and make are needed by every
> package build, so should not be needed to be listed. I wonder whether
> we can have a tag "Build-Essential: yes" for a small number of
> packages which are assumed to be present on any builder, and that do
> not need to be listed?
It seems you have not read the amendment. There was a mechanism for
this even in the first draft.
And I would have appreciated these comments at the proposal stage, when
we were still hammering out the thing. I even called for people with
complicated packages to give their input when I made the proposal.
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % firstname.lastname@example.org % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%