On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:41:00AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote: > > I've eliminated the tetex-bin dependency, BTW. bzip2 hadn't occurred > to me as a dependency, but I guess it is. What else? patch? We need > to discuss what's build-essential anyway. Here's a start: > > libc-dev > gcc > g++ > libstdc++-dev > patch > make > dpkg-dev > binutils > bison
According to the proposal, anything that is required for building a simple "Hello World" .c and .cc is an assumed dependency. Since dpkg-dev is also an assumed dependency, and it deps on make/patch/diff, those are probably assumed too. That just leaves bison as a possible, but I'm not sure. Should dpkg-dev possibly depend on anything we consider to be "assumed" for build dependencies? Ben
