Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch
Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Any chance you can elaborate on what didn't work well? I believe this
> will work robustly for packages whose debian/rules is a policy-compliant
> makefile, and I think that the handful of packages which don't could
> reasonably required to, at minimum, return a compatible error code when
> asked about build-arch. I would expect that NMUing that set of packages
> would take far less effort and archive churn than either setting a flag
> day, or annotating debian/control with Build-Options.
I went back and searched, and I may have misremembered this. The problem
that we ran into with Lintian I think was that we were worried running
make -qn could invoke code inside the package, due to make functions and
similar cases, which was a security risk for Lintian. Obviously the same
thing doesn't apply to the buildds.
It obviously won't work for the leave package, but IIRC that was a test
case anyway and will just have to change.
So this may actually be fine.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>