Benjamin Mesing wrote: > I fail to see the reason why the results should be the same.
Because otherwise we will get interesting FTBFS bugs at random times, that someone will have to fix. > Using /usr/bin/javac might as well lead to the usage of different Java > compilers Which is why we don't use it. > The same goes for gcc. How is this case different? We don't carry lots of different implementations of gcc, at most there are a few different minor versions, and even those are limited: ~$ apt-cache show build-essential | grep Depends Depends: libc6-dev | libc-dev, gcc (>= 4:4.1.1), g++ (>= 4:4.1.1), make, dpkg-dev (>= 1.13.5) >> I agree with Marcus that its much >> better to have one explicit Build-Dependency than a large collection and >> slightly different results. > > This means setting up tighter constraints (dependencies) than > neccessary. In my opinion that's bad style. No, it's very good style because we are talking about Build-Depends, not Depends. > Besides it makes migrations a little harder. It doesn't affect end-user systems at all. Marcus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
