Re: Build-Depends listed as a should not a must?
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 04:09:17AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 02:43:43AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
[your mailer seems to break attributions ... "Josip Rodin wrote:"]
> > > [1] #87510, which will incidentally be closed with the next upload.
> >
> > Uh, the objections have not been resolved. The shell one-liner Anthony
> > posted in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=87510&msg=102
> > currently prints 246, so that'll be at least 246 release-critical bugs
> > automatically created by this change in policy. Can we get those fixed
> > first, please?
>
> Please see my last message to that bug report. :)
That seems like a fair enough set of improvements (if I'm reading the
diff right - it's late, so I haven't bothered to apply them to see where
the text moves to).
I don't see how it closes #87510, though. #87510 is a request for
build-dependencies to be made mandatory: the whole should vs. may thing
was a digression somewhere. When you said you'd be closing #87510, I
assumed you meant that you were making build-dependencies a must, which
I do think is still (unfortunately) premature.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: