On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:17:52PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote: > It's not easy. In fact it's *really* not easy.
It is easy. I've specified build-time dependencies on some of my packages for months now. You just happened to try a nasty case as your first. > Standard packages: dpkg-dev, lynx, make > > Now these should need listing, as they are not marked essential. dpkg-dev and make are obviously build-essential. > Firstly, that if we are now demanding build-time dependencies, we are > asking maintainers to do a *lot* of work. (This took me about 2 > hours, maybe a little bit more.) As I said, this package is complicated. For my packages, it has been almost trivial to list the few build-time dependencies. > Thirdly, of the packages listed, dpkg-dev and make are needed by every > package build, so should not be needed to be listed. I wonder whether > we can have a tag "Build-Essential: yes" for a small number of > packages which are assumed to be present on any builder, and that do > not need to be listed? It seems you have not read the amendment. There was a mechanism for this even in the first draft. And I would have appreciated these comments at the proposal stage, when we were still hammering out the thing. I even called for people with complicated packages to give their input when I made the proposal. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "" (John Cage)
