On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 07:13:04PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > 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.
So is there a service that detect such missing *binary* dependency ? This seems the missing piece. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
