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

Bug#87510: I second this proposal

On Fri, May 18, 2001 at 11:41:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Given the cat'ed Sources file I keep around for testing, we can get a
> list of packages that don't have build-depends: listed, but would need
> them by something like:

This isn't all that accurate. The autobuilder considers some things
build-essential, like debhelper. So just because the autobuilders do not
have a build-dep for it, doesn't mean it doesn't need any.

Just FYI, since I'm not really interested in this thread...if I and
others keep filing bugs, sooner or later everything will sucomb and add
Build-Deps anyway. Forcing it with policy only means that my bug reports
will read a bit different (the severity of failing to build on a
supported arch, is just as bad as failing to meet policy, since policy
states that packages must build).


/  Ben Collins  --  ...on that fantastic voyage...  --  Debian GNU/Linux   \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: