On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:27:43PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:59:12PM +0200, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > > I second Neil's proposal from Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:49:58, i.e. the > > latest version. > > and I have to object to it because the proposal seems to mix build-time > and run-time dependencies. At least I did not get an answer to my later > post on the subject. It should be clarified whether the proposal apply > to source packages and build-dependencies or binary packages and > run-time dependencies. > I don't think it does. The proposal is for source packages, and a run-time (well, install time) dependancy should be declared on the relevent lib* package. I'm not sure there's a need to explicitly state that a lib*-dev builddep should be declared, as the package will FTBFS if it can't find that libraries it needs. Any suggestions for improved wording? And I did reply to your last mail, copying here at the end :) Cheers, Neil ------------ snip ------------- > In that case, I suggest you change package by source package and > Depends > by Build-Depends. Or am I missing something ? > Well, this section is an amendment to the source package section. Essentially, there's been a large number of packages recently that embed code from other packages in their own. Included in this is static complilation, but this seems to be covered by another bit of policy. We want to avoid packages shipping their own versions of libraries, as then if a security problem or major bug is discovered in that library, we have lots of packages to update, and there's no garuntee we'll even know which packages it affects. ------------ snip ------------- -- < weasel> dpkg: shut up < dpkg> No, I won't, and you can't make me. :P < weasel> hah. _I_ can
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature