On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 12:43:50AM -0400, James Mastros wrote: > On Sat, May 22, 1999 at 04:38:21AM +0930, Ron wrote: > > > Well, it sounds like you repeated what about a dozen people have already > > > said. The concern is an automated way to generate the depends. > Umm, any purticular reason to that compile-depends must be autogenerated -- > why can't they be done manualy by the packager? (I realize that this is less > then ideal -- but having this in optionaly, manualy seems better then not > having it at all.)
The reason to not setup this up now and leave it as a "side affect" is so it get's done right. There is no point in doing this half assed, and have everyone get used to doing it that way, and it never getting done the way it needs to be. > > > The > > > autobuilders already use a semi-working type of this, but it isn't perfect > > > and makes assumptions that can't always be assumed. > Mind describing the method the autobuilders use (and where I can find > approprate source)? > > > > I have already made a patch for dpkg-* programs to use source deps in a > > > control field, that's not the problem though. > Any reason not to put it in your next upload? Because dpkg is not mine ;) -- ----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- -------- Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian GNU/Linux OpenLDAP Dev - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Choice of the GNU Generation ------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- ---- - -------- - --- ---- - --
