Bug#87510: I second this proposal

[Peter Palfrader <peter@palfrader.org>]

Hi Anthony,

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.


					yours,
					peter

-- 
 PGP signed and encrypted  |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
    messages preferred.    | : :' :    By professionals,
                           | `. `'      for professionals
 http://www.palfrader.org/ |   `-    http://www.debian.org/