Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> writes: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:20:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: >> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdr...@debian.org> wrote: >> > > Recommends or Suggests: >> > > cdbs >> > > cmake >> >> > My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't >> > interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, so coming across packages >> > still using it will be common for a while. CMake is a corollary to >> > autoconf and heavily used in KDE-land, which seems like a >> > not-insignificant number of packages. >> >> But in both cases, those should be pulled in as build-depends, no?
Isn't this supposed to be a "give me everything I might need" meta package for people that want to start a new package or debianize something new? In that case they won't have any Build-Depends yet. Or for setting up a developement chroot for use with many packages. To get a suitable starting point so that not every single user will have to send in a "Please install foo" request. > Well, I think it is worthwhile to be able to modify and build source > packages without having to install the full Build-Depends. Do you > usually need to have cmake installed to run the clean target? If so, > that might be a reason to include it. > > > Michael Then don't install this package. I don't think it unlikely someone would want to write/work on a package that uses cmake. Just like other people would write/work on a package that uses automake. They might not need cmake/automake all the time but they will most of the time. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874o4e244y.fsf@frosties.localnet
