Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?

[Josip Rodin <joy@gkvk.hr>]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:04:32PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> Section 2.4.2 of the Debian Policy indicates that listing Build-Depends
> in a source package is only a "should", not a mandatory requirement:
> 
>    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.
> 
> Wouldn't this be better as "must"?  Are Build-Depends really to be
> considered optional?

I'm not sure how you draw this line between "should" and "optional". Just
because one possible bug to be filed against a non-conforming package is to
have normal or important severity that doesn't make it any less of a bug,
and it doesn't mean that that's the only bug that can be filed against such
a package.

>    Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended)
>    will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a
>    package unsuitable for distribution.
> 
> This means in theory that a developer could opt not to list
> Build-Depends and this would be acceptable, right?

Given that omitting non-build-essential build-depends will get them a
serious bug filed from the first buildd maintainer to notice it (this
is why I said normal or important _by default_ above), no.

Personally I really don't see why's there all this fuss[1] about this
particular detail. I've yet to see a maintainer refuse to list a valid
build-dependency in their control file. Even if anyone would think of
doing that, I'm sure they would be persuaded to change their mind very
shortly after it was noticed. }:)

[1] #87510, which will incidentally be closed with the next upload.

-- 
     2. That which causes joy or happiness.