El 4/1/23 a las 19:28, Sam Hartman escribió:
"Santiago" == Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> writes:Santiago> I think you can't really estimate such thing. You seem to Santiago> imply that we have been allowing packages with missing Santiago> build-dependencies for a long time, but that's not Santiago> accurate. The *buildds* have been allowing packages with Santiago> missing build-dependencies for a long time, but I have Santiago> been reporting those bugs for a long time as well. Thanks for the additional information. You have not changed my mind. I would prefer to solve this situation by increasing the build essential set based on what I know today.
This bug report was a request to clarify policy without altering it, for those who don't understand "packages required to build a hello world program" which is already in policy. But I'm starting to feel uncomfortable with the fact that the bug report is actually being used to propose a policy change, which was never the intent, as it's something completely different. I fully respect those who want to change policy regarding the build-essential definition, but I find it not appropriate to do that in this report, which was merely asking for a clarification of current policy. Therefore I withdraw my suggestion that current policy should be clarified by closing this bug, as there seems not to be a consensus that it needs a clarification, and I respectfully request that those willing to change the build-essential definition do so in another bug report. Thanks.
