Michael Biebl wrote:
> I wonder if nowadays pkg-config would qualify as Build-Essential.
> We have 2400 source packages listing it as explicit Build-Depends and
> countless -dev packages pulling in pkg-config. So the list of packages
> requiring pkg-config during build is potentially much longer.
> At which point do we consider a package Build-Essential?
> It's not like every package actually uses gcc or make during build either.
> Aside from the sheer number of packages requiring pkg-config, adding it
> to build-essential would be an endorsement of pkg-config as the one
> right tool to detect dependencies during configure.
I don't think we should add any more packages to build-essential. If
anything, I'd like to see both Essential and build-essential decrease in
favor of explicit dependencies, which makes it easier to replace
I don't think "many packages list it" justifies adding to
build-essential. We don't need the minimal size reduction in the
Packages file, and I don't think this would remove logical complexity,
since you still have to know that build-essential has it.
I can't think of anything this would buy us, other than a few bytes in
the Packages file.