RE: Su && Development Packages
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Bart Szyszka wrote:
> only said something to the effect of "get gcc" for "What do I need to
> compile programs"? That's horrendously absurd! gcc is not the only thing
> you need to "compile programs".
IMHO, it's not horrendously absurd. It's not even absurd. Yes, gcc is not
the only thing, but I think it's the mostly needed thing.
> Well Linux people tend to make too many assumptions about what the
> user has on their system.
Assumptions have to be made; the posters seldom write down all what they
have on their systems anyway. (It's understandable though, if they did,
then the postings may all be cluttered with the information that might not
be related to the questions asked.)
> > Eventually (for woody, I believe) all packages will have to have
> > Build-Depends: fields to pull in specialist development packages; in
> > fact, this is in the current version of policy.
> OK, but what about the software that isn't put up on Debian's site?
Then you'd be dealing with the tarballs; they are packages in their basic
forms, needed but icky (I believe that this is what Ally McBeal would say
on tarballs) compared to .deb's.
> > You don't know much about development, do you? At least not if you mean
> > "any program" as opposed to "any Debian source package".
> I meant *most* programs. Just like the boxed sets of Linux will install
> the packages you need for compiling most programs.
Yes, gcc is the first one to get; try it, you wouldn't be regretful.
Oki
Reply to: