Hi, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Thank you for the discussion, Ian and Simon. Here is the beginnings of > a patch: > >> diff --git a/policy/ch-source.rst b/policy/ch-source.rst >> index 9e7d79c..f27226e 100644 >> --- a/policy/ch-source.rst >> +++ b/policy/ch-source.rst >> @@ -40,9 +40,15 @@ example, if building a package requires a certain >> compiler, then the >> compiler should be specified as a build-time dependency. >> >> It is not necessary to explicitly specify build-time relationships on a >> -minimal set of packages that are always needed to compile, link and put >> -in a Debian package a standard "Hello World!" program written in C or >> -C++. The required packages are called *build-essential*, and an >> +minimal set of packages that are always needed >> + >> +- to compile, link and put in a Debian package a standard "Hello >> + World!" program written in C or C++; and >> + >> +- for the package build to resolve the system hostname to a >> + fully-qualified domain name using the C standard library. [#]_ Looks okay to me. As an alternative, we could encourage packages to add an explicit Build-Depends on netbase if they need this functionality. I think in the long run, I would prefer that since it would make the concept of build-essential easier for new packagers to learn. Can we both make it build-essential and recommend that packages include the Build-Depends (as a policy "should" instead of a "must") to get the best of both worlds? That way, we'd have a path to eventually simplifying back again. Thanks, Jonathan
