[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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?

Ok, I've gone back and re-read the policy section carefully, and thought about
this quite a bit.  Fundamentally, I'm unhappy with the definition of 
build-essential.  I think it should have tried to define the set of packages
that will allow packages typical of the majority of Debian packages to be
built, instead of having a goal as simple as compiling a "hello world" in 
C/C++.  That is the kind of definition I was expecting, and it's why I was
so surprised to find that debhelper wasn't considered "essential".  

I pondered for a bit whether I might have been happier if there was no 
build-essentials list at all, and the list had to be complete.  The notion
was that if something like 70% of current packages (the last estimate I saw 
of debhelper adoption) are going to need to specify explicit dependencies to 
comply with current policy, why we didn't just go ahead and make all packages
be explicit about all of their build dependencies.  Some optimization of the
list size (which is all the current build-essential really does) in each
package is better than nothing, though.

> 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?

Yes, it is better.  Thanks.

The attempt to define what is essential without specifying a list of 
packages is understandable, and probably appropriate.  However, the reality 
is that bugs are going to be filed against any package that doesn't 
explicitly note dependencies on anything that isn't on the list.  I already
have at least one such regarding debhelper.  So, for all intents and purposes,
the list *is* a manifestation of policy, no matter how much it tries to claim 
otherwise.  Such is life.  I'm sure you'll do what you can to keep it current
and accurate, and that's good enough.

> I am saying that the arrangement is like this by design, not by accident.

I'm not entirely happy with that, but I'll live with it.  

Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion.  I know how annoying
it is to have things like this come up *after* you think an issue is settled.

Bdale


Reply to: