Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 22:40 +0200 schrieb gregor herrmann: > On Thu, 26 May 2011 22:05:42 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > As a starting point packaging-dev would depend on > > > > build-essential > > quilt > > debhelper > > cmake > > autoconf > > cdbs > > bzr-builddeb > > apt-file > > ubuntu-dev-tools (only on Ubuntu systems) > > > > Do you like the idea or not? Do you have a better name for the meta > > package? Should something added to or removed from the dependency list? > > I tentatively think the idea is good; I don't really care about the > name :) > > The problem might be that the set of packages is not > trivial/uncontroversial; I'm not sure I need cdbs (or cmake), I've > never heard about bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also > svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage, and maybe dh-make) ... So yes, > the idea is interesting, but the selection of packages might need > some consideration :)
Then let's put the uncontroversial into Depends, the common (this needs discussion) into Recommends and the others into Suggests. Here's the starting point for discussion: Depends: build-essential debhelper devscripts gnupg lintian dput | dupload quilt ubuntu-dev-tools (only on Ubuntu) pbuilder | cowbuilder Recommends: apt-file autoconf bzr-builddeb (maybe Depends on Ubuntu) svn-buildpackage git-buildpackage dh-make Recommends or Suggests: cdbs cmake -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
