> dpkg-architecture is in fact in dpkg-dev which is not a dependency of
> pbuilder anyway. If dpkg-architecture is called by pbuilder, dpkg-dev
> should be a dependency (or at least a recommendation) of it (gcc is a
> recommendation of dpkg-dev).
> i pbuilder Depends debconf (>= 0.5) | debconf-2.0
> i A debconf Recommends apt-utils (>= 0.5.1)
> i A apt-utils Depends libapt-pkg-libc6.7-6-4.6
> i A apt Provides libapt-pkg-libc6.7-6-4.6
> i A apt Suggests dpkg-dev
>
> (as you can see, there is a Suggests link, which according to aptitude
> manual means that there is no stronger dependency chain).
>
> Putting a whole compiler as a dependency of some (very useful) scripts
> whose purpose is (among others) to create chroots to compile IN the
> chroot is at least a bit strange.
>
> However, I understand (after reading the source) the need to depend on
> dpkg-dev somehow (for cross-compilation purposes, apparently). Since I
> only do native compilation, I did not see this need.
pbuilder create calls debootstrap, and on a really base system,
debootstrap used to require gcc to properly determine the system
architecture and bootstrap.
However, that might have changed. If that's no longer the case, I
think the dependency can be removed.
regards,
junichi
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp} Debian Project
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
