El 4/1/23 a las 18:23, Sam Hartman escribió:
I think that the cost of going and adding all the build-depends on required-but-not-build-essential is not worth what I estimate we'd gain from having this extra information.
I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to imply that we have been allowing packages with missing build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not accurate. The *buildds* have been allowing packages with missing build-dependencies for a long time, but I have been reporting those bugs for a long time as well. So it's not as if I were proposing that we start doing something that we have never done. My only aim is that we detect such bugs earlier in the chain, in the buildds, where it should be. BTW: Today I reported that kodi did not build without tzdata. But in the end this was not a missing build-dependency of kodi, but a missing *binary* dependency of one of the build-dependencies of kodi. Also, several weeks ago, a bunch of ruby packages which did not build from source had a common build-dependency which had a missing dependency on tzdata. This means that smaller build environments help to detect missing binary dependencies as well. Thanks.
