Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch
* Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) [110606 22:05]:
> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
>
> > Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
> > think is sensible.
>
> Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which
> this is not already the case is "leave".
Sure, but there's a difference between requiring it and enforcing it.
Not that I think that's bad, but at least we should speak out that
side-effect.
> I don't like option #3 because it's something we'll be stuck with forever
> and requires packagers update both debian/rules and debian/control to
> configure things properly.
Ok, that puts #3 below #5.
> One of the reasons why I'm personally fond of
> #4 is that it reduces our long-term complexity.
We could always upgrade #1 and #2 to #4. However, I don't think I'd
like to introduce a new way to mass-fail packages (if someone provides
numbers that this are only few packages, things might be different,
but I don't think that's already the case - if in a few years time
that's fixed, great.).
Andi
Reply to: