[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#836940: Bug#836940: cowbuilder, sbuild: should behave identically in regard to default gnupg installation

[Johannes Schauer]

Hi,

Quoting Santiago Vila (2016-09-07 20:33:54)
> Moreover, Markus suggested that I work towards "defining a common
> build environment standard". Not sure what he meant by that. Do we
> need such standard or we can still use the already existing set of
> build essential packages?
> 
> I would prefer not to bother the release managers or the technical
> committee about this if anybody here could convince Markus that Bug #834744
> should be serious (not just because of policy but also because that's
> how we usually file FTBFS bugs that happen because of missing build-depends).

indeed, there already is a definition of the "common build environment
standard" and that definition is given by the relationships between packages in
the archive and the implicit dependencies on Essential:yes and build-essential,
just as given in the section of Debian policy that you described.

I would be interested to hear what Markus means by defining a "common build
environment standard" because then I'd like to present reasons why our current
standard (Essential:yes plus build-essential plus Build-Depends minus
Build-Conflicts) is an excellent way to define the set.

Thanks!

cheers, josch
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20160907/54bb8806/attachment.sig>