Re: Is debhelper build-essential?

[Anthony Towns]

Andreas Barth wrote:
* Hamish Moffatt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050114 00:45]:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:26:52PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:19:03PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Also of interest is that some 1300 packages would no longer need to 
declare a Build-Depends: at all with those changes, and another 1200 
wouldn't need to declare a Build-Depends-Indep:.
Not even versioned depends?
Not if build-essential included a suitable versioned depends, like
debhelper (>= 4). It already does that for gcc.
That would still mean a versioned dependency on build-essential.
Build dependencies on build-essential are always redundant. 
Build-Essential is, by definition, the set of packages you don't need to 
Build-Depend on. A dependency >= an old version is similarly redundant, 
and a dependency >= a future version is fairly useless -- it's not 
satisfiable after all. I guess a <= dependency might have a worthwhile 
meaning, though it'll certainly cause more trouble than it's worth.

Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]