On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 03:11:57AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 07:04:32PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > 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? > > Given that omitting non-build-essential build-depends will get them a > serious bug filed from the first buildd maintainer to notice it (this > is why I said normal or important _by default_ above), no.
Unless it has no build-dependencies at all, in which case andrea will take care of it as far as the autobuilders are concerned and serious bugs aren't needed. > Personally I really don't see why's there all this fuss[1] about this > particular detail. I've yet to see a maintainer refuse to list a valid > build-dependency in their control file. Even if anyone would think of > doing that, I'm sure they would be persuaded to change their mind very > shortly after it was noticed. }:) > > [1] #87510, which will incidentally be closed with the next upload. Uh, the objections have not been resolved. The shell one-liner Anthony posted in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=87510&msg=102 currently prints 246, so that'll be at least 246 release-critical bugs automatically created by this change in policy. Can we get those fixed first, please? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
