On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > + <p> > + It is not necessary for a source package to specify > + dependencies on the following packages: packages which are > + marked <tt>Essential</tt>; packages with the priority > + <tt>required</tt>; the <tt>dpkg-dev</tt> and <tt>make</tt> > + packages; and packages which are required for compiling > + and linking a minimal "Hello World" program written in C > + or C++. Runtime library packages should not normally be > + specified in source dependencies.
Small comment: I like the informal way the "build-essential" packages are described. However, for practical reasons, it would help to specify also which ones they are at a given time. For example: [...] and packages which are required for compiling and linking a minimal "Hello World" program written in C or C++ (currently the following ones: binutils, libc6-dev, gcc, [...]). The idea would be to provide a real list, but also the rationale from which the list is derived, so that whenever the list of build-essential packages change, we just update policy accordingly, without changing the spirit of it. How does this sound? BTW: You mention both "Essential: yes" packages and "Priority: required" packages as the basis for the build-essential packages. Would not be easier to specify just "Priority: required", or do you want dependencies on, say, Essential packages of extra priority not to be specified? Thanks. -- "10b71a6acfe945c43349f1765089edfe" (a truly random sig)
