Re: Are build-dependancies mandatory?

[Daniel Schepler <schepler@math.berkeley.edu>]

Marcin Owsiany <porridge@pandora.info.bielsko.pl> writes:

> On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 06:00:07AM -0500, BugScan reporter wrote:
> > 
> > Package: cvs (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Eric Gillespie, Jr. <epg@debian.org>
> >   95263  missing build dependency
> 
> The policy says:
> 
>       A source package may declare a dependency or a conflict
>       on a binary package.
> 
> Then why is missing build dependency considered an RC bug?
> I know build-depends is a good thing, but shouldn't the policy
> be changed then?

Hmm, it also says (in section 2.4.2): (emphasis mine)

  Source packages _should_ specify which binary packages they require
  to be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly.

  ...

  _If_ build-time dependencies are specified, it _must_ be possible to
  build the package and produce working binaries on a system with only
  essential and build-essential packages installed and also those
  required to satisfy the build-time relationships (including any
  implied relationships).

So officially, completely missing build-depends is a normal bug;
incomplete build-depends is RC.

Is this an inconsistency with the above quote from section 7.6, which
uses the word "may"?
-- 
Daniel Schepler              "Please don't disillusion me.  I
schepler@math.berkeley.edu    haven't had breakfast yet."
                                 -- Orson Scott Card