Hi, On Fri, 2003-12-19 at 15:47, Roland Stigge wrote: > consider #216747, where a package declares "Build-Depends-Indep: > debhelper" and uses e.g. dh_clean in the debian/rules clean target. > Build-Depends-Indep is defined to be satisfied in the build, > build-indep, binary and binary-indep targets, but not in clean. > > For the main distribution, "grep Build-Depends-Indep .../Sources|grep > debhelper|wc -l" results in 1871 packages. I didn't check all of them > but I doubt that many of them also declare "Build-Depends: debhelper" or > don't use dh_clean in the clean target. So >>1000 source packages seem > to behave like the package in #216747. Andreas Metzler wrote: > I think you are overestimating the issue. Contrary to policy the > buildds do not install Build-Depends-Indep when running > debian/rules build > so these bugs are found fast. What this (and the ongoing whole thread) seems to say to me is that buildds don't conform to policy. That's great! But it's not _directly_ connected to the question I asked (of which severity the bug described is). I'm concluding that you want to say to me that as long as the buildds have the current "relation" to policy, I shouldn't care any further about this issue (but then, #216747 isn't serious). Otherwise, please explain. Thanks. bye, Roland
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part