Re: Policy Weekly Issue #4/16: New source package format
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 24 Oct 1997, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As far as I am concerned there is only one remaining issue to be
> settled with regard to this field: the list of packages upon which
> dependencies do not need to be listed. I propose that this list be:
> packages which have `Priority: Standard' or better [...]
This is a good start. However, I think it is too large. "Standard or
better" includes packages like bison, flex, autoconf or automake.
For example, if a package needs bison to be built, I would like to know
it. Imagine that a severe bug is discovered in bison and we want to
recompile all packages using bison in the building process. If we keep
bison out of the list, we'll know which packages are using it by looking
at the Source-Depends: field. If the list includes bison, we'll never
know.
Keeping the list as short as possible will give us a lot of
useful information.
A shorter list could be:
`Priority: Important' or better plus gcc, binutils, libc6-dev and make.
Comments?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBNFCK2yqK7IlOjMLFAQHE9wP+I0Wrukdj4xt3tXLnYKQ8R75SjXBg7cJG
5XwwFXkttYwJQWZppJNI/GbSo/WL1oJSlP6nl/09I+CvbOv8NNepblmVXes8WmNS
uWnx+c0eM96t469OQuB91Nupu8uI3uIZN6tDrNLt2stEpW8BDDY2AXLyg7XSufYs
AqTzMaBUlJ4=
=wOig
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: