Bug#1027832: debian-policy: Please clarify that priority required packages are not automatically build essential

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org> writes:
    Santiago> A minimal build essential set provides and generates
    Santiago> useful information that a build essential set which is not
    Santiago> so minimal does not provide.

    Santiago> For example, some packages have unit tests which depend on
    Santiago> the information stored on tzdata. In some cases, changes
    Santiago> in tzdata causes those unit tests to fail.

Okay.
I don't find that example particularly compelling.
I absolutely agree with you we've found such bugs, but I think that the
cost of going and adding all the build-depends on
required-but-not-build-essential is not worth what I estimate we'd gain
from having this extra information.

I thin there are a few other reasons we want to keep the build-essential
set small:

* It reduces the number of packages involved in early freeze
* I suspect that there probably are bootstrapping implications.

However, neither of those reasons appear very compelling when applied to
required packages.

I appreciate the work of fixing the packages would be distributed,
although I think a significant portion of it would land on the small
number of people who do archive-wide QA.
Even if it were fully distributed, that work has a real cost.