Section 2.4.2 of the Debian Policy indicates that listing Build-Depends in a source package is only a "should", not a mandatory requirement:
Source packages should specify which binary packages they require to be installed or not to be installed in order to build correctly. For example, if building a package requires a certain compiler, then the compiler should be specified as a build-time dependency. Wouldn't this be better as "must"? Are Build-Depends really to be considered optional? I realize that if Build-Depends /are/ listed, it is a "must" that they be complete: If build-time dependencies are specified, it must be possible to build the package and produce working binaries on a system with only essential and build-essential packages installed and also those required to satisfy the build-time relationships However, "should" is classified by the Policy as: Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. This means in theory that a developer could opt not to list Build-Depends and this would be acceptable, right? -- Jamin W. Collins
