El 4/1/23 a las 17:45, Julien Cristau escribió:
Like I said in the debootstrap bug, I believe we should treat a case
where a package is Priority: required but not actually required by the
Essential set as a bug in package priorities, and neither debootstrap
nor policy need to change.
I take you
Your message dated Wed, 4 Jan 2023 22:20:46 +0100
with message-id
and subject line Re: Bug#1027832: debian-policy: Please clarify that priority
required packages are not automatically build essential
has caused the Debian Bug report #1027832,
regarding debian-policy: Please clarify that priority
El 4/1/23 a las 19:28, Sam Hartman escribió:
"Santiago" == Santiago Vila writes:
Santiago> I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to
Santiago> imply that we have been allowing packages with missing
Santiago> build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not
El 4/1/23 a las 19:54, Bill Allombert escribió:
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 miss
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
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila writes:
Santiago> I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to
Santiago> imply that we have been allowing packages with missing
Santiago> build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not
Santiago> accurate. The *buildds* have been
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 hav
> "Santiago" == Santiago Vila writes:
Santiago> A minimal build essential set provides and generates
Santiago> useful information that a build essential set which is not
Santiago> so minimal does not provide.
Santiago> For example, some packages have unit tests which depend on
El 4/1/23 a las 17:16, Russ Allbery escribió:
But if you are building new Debian packages,
by definition you are not in a tiny minimal system case. build-essential
is already somewhat arbitrary and chosen for convenience (most packages do
not require a C++ compiler). Why not expand build-essent
On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 22:14:10 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello. This is an attempt to put the basis for fixing this bug:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=837060
>
> As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not build-essential
> and afaik have not been for
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 08:46:39AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> El 4/1/23 a las 2:32, Sam Hartman escribió:
> > > > > > > "Santiago" == Santiago Vila writes:
> >
> > Santiago> As an example, packages tzdata, mount or e2fsprogs are not
> > Santiago> build-essential and afaik have not be
On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 22:14:10 CET Santiago Vila wrote:
> --
> From this definition it follows that packages of required priority are not
> necessarily build essential, as it is possible for some them not to be
... for some *of* them ..
Santiago Vila writes:
> El 4/1/23 a las 2:32, Sam Hartman escribió:
>> Why not just make all required packages build-essential? I agree we
>> should fix the class of bugs you are talking about, but it seems like
>> in some cases it might be easier to fix them by declaring them not
>> buggy.
> B
13 matches
Mail list logo
