On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 11:26:05AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential.
No, I don't think so.
> We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and
> countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list of
2016-09-17 14:06 Guillem Jover:
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 11:26:05 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
At which point do we consider a package Build-Essential?
It's not like every package actually uses gcc or make during build either.
If you had picked g++ that would have been a better example. :) But
ma
Hi!
On Sat, 2016-09-17 at 11:26:05 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential.
I don't think so.
> We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and
> countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list of packages
>
Am 17.09.2016 um 12:24 schrieb Josh Triplett:
> I can't think of anything this would buy us, other than a few bytes in
> the Packages file.
It's a valid question. I guess I need to explain what triggered this
email. A couple of days ago I uploaded a new version of gtk-doc-tools
(to experimental) w
Michael Biebl wrote:
> I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential.
>
> We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and
> countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list of packages
> requiring pkg-config during build is potentially much longer
Hi,
I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential.
We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and
countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list of packages
requiring pkg-config during build is potentially much longer.
At which point do we co
6 matches
Mail list logo
