> > I see two situations up front: > > - a need to describe the tools needed to build a package > > (eg. gcc, bison, flex, etc..) > > - and a need to describe the other source packages or librarys required > > to build a working binary. > Why do these need to be treated differently?
They don't need to be if they are all available as .debs, but I envisaged the possibility of: > 3. Requiring bin-packages vs. requiring build trees from other package's > source thinking about that though, I tend to agree with: > In general, on prior discussions, ... on 3 it was suguested that > requiring build trees from another package was considered buggy. There are exceptions to this of course.. some packages require kernel source to build modules etc. but in general I would think that this sort of dependency should be resolved by having a foo-dev.deb package.
