Hi, At the time I did the the build-essential changes I think I was not aware about the new «Build-Essential: yes» field in the Packages files. So I think this part should be changed...
On Sun, 2008-05-11 at 16:38:28 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Sun, 11 May 2008, Alexis Huxley wrote: > > 2) assign one half to the build-essential people so that the text: > > > > > > ... Moreover this package is not required for building Debian > > > > packages. I read this part more as that the build-essential package dependencies are not the final authority on what is build essential, and not that build essential packages are not required to be installed to build stuff. > > is removed from their package description, > > Right. Doing so. Matthias, can you update the description of the > build-essential package so that it looks like more like an official > definition of "build-essential"? The fact that dpkg-buildpackage relies on > it really makes it clearly official... and as such it's really required > for building packages in most cases. ... and probably this part reverted, port-lenny (although it's not that important, but would restore clarity once dpkg has been fixed). > > 3) assign the other half to dpkg-dev to make build-essential an > > *install-time* > > dependency, not just a run-time dependency. > > dpkg-dev already Recommends build-essential so there's nothing to do here. > Making it a strong dependency would be wrong as dpkg-buildpackage -d can > be used and the other tools in the packages do not need build-essential in > any way. I agree with Raphaël and this 3rd point would be not valid anymore anyway. But I assume Alexis would have the same issue with the tool complaining about all missing packages marked «Build-Essential: yes». Still, I think that'd be and improvement. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
