> Small comment: I like the informal way the "build-essential" > packages are described. However, for practical reasons, it would > help to specify also which ones they are at a given time. For > example: > > [...] and packages which are required for compiling and linking a > minimal "Hello World" program written in C or C++ (currently the > following ones: binutils, libc6-dev, gcc, [...]).
Such a list will be helpful for many people, I think. I'd also like such a list, but... > The idea would be to provide a real list, but also the rationale > from which the list is derived, so that whenever the list of > build-essential packages change, we just update policy accordingly, > without changing the spirit of it. How does this sound? Ok, you don't change the spirit of policy, but you nevertheless have to change it... And as experience shows, the updates are often enough forgotten. So I understand Antti's objections against explicitly listing some packages. What do others think about this? Roman
