> > > Some of these can be detected automatically (#5 could be discovered with a > > > grep on debian/rules, for example), but some can't. > > > > So, what's the problem? We don't autodetect all of binary dependencies > > either. Maintainers generally know what they need to build their packages; > > it should be trivial for them to list the dependencies explicitly! > > > > Besides, if source dependencies were completely autodetectable, we wouldn't > > need them. > > Agreed. We don't need any magic, just a common location for that useful > piece of information.
This seems like a very rational place to start.. we need a control field to describe source dependencies before we can have any magic (ordinary or otherwise;) that will use them.. How then do we get this a step closer to reality.. should this become a formal policy proposal for including a source-depends description to the control files, or do we handball this to the team that will ultimately undertake the rehash of the packaging system? I think I'd like to see dpkg-ng handling *both* source and binary package installs in the future, but perhaps someone has reasons that I am misguided in this?? best, Ron.