Re: Bug#94827: tktable; Build-Depends: debhelper
On 24-Apr-01, 05:25 (CDT), Herbert Xu <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <email@example.com> wrote:
> > No, I'm suggesting that build-depends could simply have an unversioned
> > depends on debhelper. The buildds would then always have the latest
> > version of debhelper. No effort required of the build-depends maint.
> But build-time dependencies aren't just for buildd's. Humans need them too.
> I wouldn't like to have to compile a package and fail near the very end just
> because it hasn't declared a proper versioned build-depends on debhelper.
Sorry, I screwed up in a confusing way throughout:
If you're building packages, you should have the latest versions of the
packages listed in build-essential. If a specific package really has a
maximum version of debhelper, it could list
Build-Depends: debhelper (< x.y)
but most packages wouldn't need that, just like most packages don't have
a versioned dependency on the C++ compiler.
The counter argument is that for people building unstable packages on a
stable box with the stable build-essential, "latest" might not be nearly
enough in the case of debhelper. (Of course, the C++ compiler is can
move in big jumps too.)
Steve Greenland <firstname.lastname@example.org>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)