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

Re: Bug#94827: tktable; Build-Depends: debhelper

On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:08:32AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:

> problem is when following unstable, one sometimes has debhelper
> depends change fairly often.  No sense forcing the build-depends
> maint to keep up with joeyh's rapid upload rates.

That's a reasonable argument for now, although we may want to
reconsider when/if debhelper stabilizes a bit.  Which may not be too
far in the future.  At this point, the vast majority of packages could
probably safely build-depend on debhelper >= 3.0.0 -- I know all of
mine can.  Some can even still build-depend on unversioned debhelper,
but I'm switching to the 3.0.0 dh_installman for most.

I've never had a package that didn't build-depend on either
unversioned debhelper or 3.0.0.

> Besides, debhelper is not truly essential many package still do not use it.

That's a very flimsy argument.  Lots of packages don't use gcc, huge
numbers don't use g++, but both of those are considered build-essential.

Bottom line, I think the short-term arguments against making debhelper
build-essential are decent, but long-term is another matter.

Chris Waters      |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org  |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or  xtifr@dsp.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

Reply to: