Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> writes: > El 4/1/23 a las 2:32, Sam Hartman escribió:
>> Why not just make all required packages build-essential? I agree we >> should fix the class of bugs you are talking about, but it seems like >> in some cases it might be easier to fix them by declaring them not >> buggy. > Because required to build != required in a _running_ system I think that's why Sam suggested making them build-essential, not essential. > The idea of declaring something not a bug to avoid fixing it is not very > appealing to me. I believe we can do better than that. I think the part that I don't understand is why we would bite off a possibly substantial amount of work to minimize the *build-essential* set. I understand why we want to minimize the essential set: we want to support tiny systems and small containers and other cases where Debian shouldn't hog a bunch of disk space. But if you are building new Debian packages, by definition you are not in a tiny minimal system case. build-essential is already somewhat arbitrary and chosen for convenience (most packages do not require a C++ compiler). Why not expand build-essential to what we're largely doing in practice to fix the consistency problem (which is a real issue) but not add work tweaking build dependencies for a bunch of packages? What benefit are we gaining from trying to push for that extra bit of minimization of *build* environments? To be clear, this is a real question, not rhetorical. It's quite likely that there is some benefit that I'm not seeing (such as with bootstrapping new architectures). -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>