Bug#41232: debian-policy: [PROPOSAL] Build-time dependencies on binary packages
On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 05:15:27PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 1999 at 03:20:34PM +0200, Roman Hodek wrote:
> > Just one note: Arch-{Depends,Conflicts} might be unnecessary, as it
> > should be very rare that someone only builds the arch-indep packages.
> > So we could merge Arch-Depends into Depends. If one compiles with
> > dpkg-buildpackage -B, he needs to look only at Depends.
> > dpkg-buildpackage without -B needs to look at Depends + Indep-Depends.
>
> This sounds doable. Any opinions?
Fine for me.
> > For my current system I have defined the following packages as
> > build-essential:
>
> I wanted to avoid naming specific packages in Policy (I only named two in
> the proposal, make and dpkg-dev), since packages change and it would be a
> pain in the rear to change policy every time GNU Libc changes name, for
> example.
IMHO, we will have to name specific packages. However, unlike Roman, I
hesitate to provide a huge default set. "make" of course sounds reasonable,
"dpkg-dev" anyway, but "texinfo" not. texinfo *was* in the tetex packages,
and I had some trouble to compile some packages on the Hurd before I had tex
:) [I used texinfo from the GNU source though, which worked fine]
Now, texinfo is not in tetex but in it's own package. Still, I think it is
important to add it to the Depends.
I don't mind the few extra bytes, and the work is done by each maintainer on
its own, so it is reasonable to make the Depends inclusive rather then
exclusive.
> > Depends-Sourcetree: tcl8.0 ("ln -s tcl8.0-* tcl8.0; cd tcl8.0; ./configure --prefix=/usr")
>
> I want to keep this proposal as clean as possible; I don't want to see this
> kind of kluging in it if at all possible. My intent is to let this proposal
> to handle the majority cases. The tough minority will need to be dealt with
> separately (for example, by using your central dependencies forever for
> these packages).
I have to agree with Antti-Juhani. Although it is nice that such weird
things can be automated (hi Roman :), I think this should not be covered by
dpkg for now.
> In my opinion, we should ban dependencies on source packages in the Policy
> (although I'm not proposing that yet).
Yes, this is something to consider.
> > - You don't need to specify packages that are dependencies of another
> > package that is already a source dependency, provided that nothing
> > is used explicitly from the first package.
>
> Agreed. Do you want to write the language for the Policy? I'll accept it
> as a part of this proposal, if you do.
"Indirect dependencies are evil, don't depend on them. If you do, we wil come
and hurt you." :)
I think we don't need to add this to the proposal. Roman just wanted to make
us aware of something that follows directly from the word Dependency in the
abstract sense (IMO).
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: