Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 15:49:20 -0400
- From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
>>>>> "Holger" == Holger Levsen <holger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Holger> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 03:37:55PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Bernd> gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be
Bernd> safe to allow debhelper to build its package using
Bernd> debhelper. Or am I missing something here?
>> If we reach consensus on the overall idea, I was planning to ask
>> the debhelper maintainers whether they thought they needed an
>> exception for build-depends of debhelper. Unless you think you
>> have special knowledge there, let's assume we can handle that
>> question as part of working through details.
Holger> I think being bootstrappable(.org) is a very worthwhile
Holger> feature, so please let's not make this harder than it
Holger> already is.
Debhelper is arch all and because of its implementation its "opaque"
binaries aren't very opaque as these things go.
I think that the debhelper maintainers are aware of the issues of
bootstrappability and can make an informed decision here.
I'll be shocked if there's not already a cycle involving building dpkg
requiring a build of debhelper as an example.