Package: build-essential Version: 11.5 On Sun, 28 Mar 2010, Steve Langasek wrote: > > Actually I'm not sure the FTBFS report of that one is correct; it > > seemed to be missing gpg, but gnupg is Build-Essential: yes; I uploaded > > a package build-deping on gnupg explicitly because I thought this was a > > problem with the Launchpad chroots, but actually these *do* include > > gpg, I guess Lucas' chroots were missing it. Latest upload built fine. > > The package has a Build-Essential: yes field in the Packages file, but isn't > the definition of build-essential "the set of packages that > 'build-essential' depends on"? I have no idea what sets or honors a > Build-Essential: yes field in Packages. > > Since you've uploaded a workaround there's no need to worry about the > package being removed now, but I wonder if we shouldn't be fixing this in > the build-essential package rather than expecting lucas's rebuilds to honor > what appears to be a non-standard field.
Those fields are added by Debian's ftpmasters by way of their extra override file: http://ftp.debian.org/debian/indices/override.sid.extra.main.gz debootstrap in buildd mode honors that field. That disparity is still undesired IMO, filing a bug against build-essential for this. Cheers, -- Raphaƫl Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org