On 30-Aug-00, 12:51 (CDT), Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20000830T112651-0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > That's pretty much the definition (or at least the *use*) of > > Build-Essential: packages that may be assumed to be present, so that > > they need not be listed in Build-Depends. > > It's not the definition.
Which is why I hedged with "pretty much" and "*use*". :-) > One of the explicit design goals for the current > setup was that policy should not need to mention specific packages. Which is just a stupid pain in the ass. I had to track through three different references and finally install the "build-depends" package to find out what I could leave out of by "Build-Depends" stanza. It would *much* easier for developers, if less ideologically pure, to just list the damn packages on the Developers Corner part of the website. And yes, I followed the discussion and reasons. I didn't disagree at the time, but when the time came to use it, it was severely annoying. Steve -- Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read every list I post to.)