Re: Source dependencies
On Mon, 24 Feb 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The syntax would be
> Source-Depends: <dependency-specs as in ordinary dependency field>
> in the .dsc file (NOT in the .deb control file).
>
> As for an ordinary dependency, Essential packages should not be
> listed. Convention ought to be that only the compiler and not the
> libc ought to be listed, so that dependencies on libc versions are not
> hardwired unless they're really true.
>
> Opinions ?
Dunno if it's important to list the compiler when it's gcc, because 90% of
the packages need it; unless a specific version of gcc is needed of course.
However, this will probably be very usefull for "unsual compilers" (like
"sgml2txt", "f2c", ...) (doc-debian won't build without sgml2txt:
(Source-Depends: linuxdoc-sgml), and scilab won't build without f2c:
(Source-Depends: f2c))
Since we're on the .dsc format, could we also add the field
"Source-Date:"
This would be very usefull to track the package releases
and find which packages are orphaned. (There's no way currently no
know when a source archive has been built, and a package which has not
been released for more than 6 months is potentialy orphaned.)
--
- ** Linux ** +-------------------+ ** WAW ** -
- vincent@debian.org | RENARDIAS Vincent | vincent@waw.com -
- Debian/GNU Linux +-------------------+ http://www.waw.com/ -
- http://www.debian.org/ | WAW (33) 4 91 81 21 45 -
- | Luminy (33) 4 91 82 85 32 -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
This message was delayed because the list mail delivery agent was down.
Reply to: