>>>>> "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. I think this is a case where either option is technically reasonable, and where a fairly rough consensus is appropriate to move forward. So my hope is that as more people chime in, the policy editors eventually judge a consensus, but I think it is fine for that consensus to be more rough than we usually take for policy.