> On Sun, Nov 28, 1999 at 12:01:44AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > There needs to be a canonical list of the packages that are part of the > > build-essential set *somewhere*. > > Why?
Ok, I've gone back and re-read the policy section carefully, and thought about this quite a bit. Fundamentally, I'm unhappy with the definition of build-essential. I think it should have tried to define the set of packages that will allow packages typical of the majority of Debian packages to be built, instead of having a goal as simple as compiling a "hello world" in C/C++. That is the kind of definition I was expecting, and it's why I was so surprised to find that debhelper wasn't considered "essential". I pondered for a bit whether I might have been happier if there was no build-essentials list at all, and the list had to be complete. The notion was that if something like 70% of current packages (the last estimate I saw of debhelper adoption) are going to need to specify explicit dependencies to comply with current policy, why we didn't just go ahead and make all packages be explicit about all of their build dependencies. Some optimization of the list size (which is all the current build-essential really does) in each package is better than nothing, though. > I rephrased the disclaimer a little for build-essential 2, which is > in Incoming. Is it satisfactory now? If not, can you suggest a better > wording? Yes, it is better. Thanks. The attempt to define what is essential without specifying a list of packages is understandable, and probably appropriate. However, the reality is that bugs are going to be filed against any package that doesn't explicitly note dependencies on anything that isn't on the list. I already have at least one such regarding debhelper. So, for all intents and purposes, the list *is* a manifestation of policy, no matter how much it tries to claim otherwise. Such is life. I'm sure you'll do what you can to keep it current and accurate, and that's good enough. > I am saying that the arrangement is like this by design, not by accident. I'm not entirely happy with that, but I'll live with it. Thanks for taking the time to engage in this discussion. I know how annoying it is to have things like this come up *after* you think an issue is settled. Bdale