gnupg missing in build-essential
hertzog at debian.org
Mon Mar 29 07:13:50 BST 2010
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
debootstrap in buildd mode honors that field.
That disparity is still undesired IMO, filing a bug against
build-essential for this.
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/
More information about the ubuntu-devel