On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 01:39:28PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > Torsten Werner wrote: > > The Build-Essential: yes field has been updated 2 months ago to better > > match the declared Depends in the package build-essential as requested > > in bug #548801. > > It seems there is a misunderstanding about the purpose of the > Build-Essential flag then. > > Obviously it is not to tag packages that are dependencies of the > build-essential meta package. That would make the flag rather redundant as > you'd get the same effect by just installing build-essentials.
Right, the list I gave in the bug report should be more than enough, I see no reason to have others in that list. > From that perspective apt should be tagged Build-Essential. Simply because > without apt you don't have a working build system. apt is not and never was needed to build a package and therefor is not build essential. The buildds never required apt to be in the chroots until recently. Having apt in the chroot however has always been handy. The debootstrap buildd variant should probably add that, just like it should probably add sudo and/or fakeroot and debfoster. It's not something that belongs in the Packages file. I'm also not sure why pbuilder, cowbuilder or whatever should use the "buildd" variant, they're not buildds. Maybe debootstrap needs a build-essential variant and they should use that and add the packages that they need. And maybe we should do the same for the buildd chroot creation script. > And build-essential should of course also be tagged, but IMO *not* any > packages on which build-essential already depends. That can be argued about, but I don't see the need. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
