gnupg missing in build-essential

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 29/03/10 at 00:21 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 08:13:50AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> gnupg isn't build-essential in Debian and not marked as such; what disparity
> are you hoping to correct with this bug report against the Debian package?
> 
> (If anything, it appears the Debian jetring package has a missing
> build-dependency on gnupg that has been overlooked because the package is
> arch: all.)

It is possible that I added gnupg to the Debian chroot to avoid all the apt
warnings in the build log. My chroot is almost minimal, but I don't try
too hard to make it really minimal.

- Lucas