On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:21 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Frank KÃster > > | That's correct from the point of view of a buildd, or of a developer > | running a sid machine. But it is not correct for backporters: Imagine > | that packages are added to build-essential, or versioned dependencies in > | it are bumped to a higher version number. Then a package without > | Build-Dependencies, or with Build-Dependencies that can be fulfilled in > | stable, might still not build in a stable environment. > > Which is why build-essential in sarge would be updated to depend on > debhelper now, so packages in etch could get rid of debhelper > build-deps. People backporting from unstable to oldstable are on > their own, but I think that's ok and not a very interesting use-case. > I don't believe build-essential has this +1 requirement ... if you're building a package from any distribution, you need to meet the build-essential requirements of *that* distribution; not the distribution you're currently running.
In effect, if you're building unstable packages on stable, the first thing you should build is unstable's build-essential. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
