[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch

On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 21:56:22 +0200, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote:
> Why 3 below 5?

Introducing a new field that must be filled in and kept (manually) in
sync with information that is already present in the rules file just
doesn't seem like a good solution.

I'm less afraid of 4 than some people would be, particularly with some
time to go before we'd think about freezing our next stable release.
But 1 and 2 both seem plausible to me and would be much less disruptive.

> Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is
> think is sensible.

Right.  This has always been part of Debian policy, and I have not been
swayed by those who have tried to argue against it at various times.


Attachment: pgp48VoEjIJQk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: