On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 09:46:45AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 05:06:21PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:21 +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > > > * Frank Küster > > > > | 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. > > Well, this has interesting consequences if you're building a C++ package > that also build-depends on random-c++-lib-dev, given that unstable's > build-essential depends on g++ (>= 3:3.3)
This is a fairly good example of why. Lots of stuff in unstable just won't build correctly with the versions of g++ in woody. > and no C++ libraries in stable > could have been built against that ABI. Yeah, that part pretty much sucks. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
