Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

2007-01-20 Thread Sven Hoexter
Hi all, while working on proftpd backport I've been stumbling about the fact that the proftpd package did not declare a build-dep on the libattr1-dev package. The package is clearly needed if you're going to build it by hand. I've been expecting the package to FTBFS on the buildds but the opposite

Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

2007-01-20 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:58:33AM +0100, Sven Hoexter wrote: while working on proftpd backport I've been stumbling about the fact that the proftpd package did not declare a build-dep on the libattr1-dev package. The package is clearly needed if you're going to build it by hand. I've been

Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

2007-01-20 Thread Julien Valroff
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 02:05:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 10:58:33AM +0100, Sven Hoexter wrote: while working on proftpd backport I've been stumbling about the fact that the proftpd package did not declare a build-dep on the libattr1-dev package. The package

Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

2007-01-20 Thread Benjamin Mesing
And isn't it a good idea to declare a build-dep even in this case? proftpd would FTBS if libacl1-dev would drop its dependency on libattr1-dev. Is there a commonly accepted rule on these particular cases? There is. If the package directly depends on libattr1-dev (this usually means it

Re: Why are the buildds able to find a Build-Dep on their own?

2007-01-20 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 11:54:28AM +0100, Benjamin Mesing wrote: And isn't it a good idea to declare a build-dep even in this case? proftpd would FTBS if libacl1-dev would drop its dependency on libattr1-dev. Is there a commonly accepted rule on these particular cases? There is.