Bug#51412: conflict in documents
On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 12:01:44AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> There needs to be a canonical list of the packages that are part of the
> build-essential set *somewhere*.
Why?
The point of the current way is to reduce the risk of having an outdated
authoritative list of build-essential packages. *And* it makes it
possible for us to update the list without going through the policy
amendment procedure every time something changes in the build setup.
It is my intention to keep the list as accurate as I can, but I don't
like to mention specific packages in policy. That's another reason why
build-essential is not authoritative.
This all was discussed when the build-time dependency spec was being
hammered out on -policy.
> The fact that the policy is vague
It is not vague. The definition is (or at least attempts to be)
unambiguous. It takes a little effort to find out what the set actually
is, but presumably you cannot arrive in two different sets based on
that definition.
The build-essential package is there to provide you a precalcualated set.
However, if I made a mistake in determining the set, the mistake is
not automatically part of policy. This is yet another point for the
current arrangement.
> and the
> list in your package carries a wimp-out disclaimer in combination fails to
> meet this need.
I rephrased the disclaimer a little for build-essential 2, which is
in Incoming. Is it satisfactory now? If not, can you suggest a better
wording?
> It seems that what you are really saying is that this is another bug in the
> policy.
No, I am saying that the arrangement is like this by design, not by
accident.
--
%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%
""
(John Cage)
Reply to: