Bug#87510: I second this proposal
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> There are two flaws with this proposal. One is that it's completely
> wrongheaded to declare something RC when a significant number of packages
> don't do it already.
Yes, I agree with this now.
> The other is that it's completely wrongheaded
> to convert a policy from being entirely optional (you /may/ declare
> build-depends) straight to being compulsory.
Section 2.4.2 says /should/:
| 2.4.2. Package relationships
| Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to
| be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly. For
| example, if building a package requires a certain compiler, then the
| compiler should be specified as a build-time dependency.
PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
messages preferred. | : :' : By professionals,
| `. `' for professionals
http://www.palfrader.org/ | `- http://www.debian.org/