Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement debian/rules build-arch
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 08:14:55PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-07-23 at 15:45:08 +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > BTW, another option for the long-term solution which we haven't really
> > addressed head-on is that dpkg-buildpackage could detect whether both
> > arch-indep and arch-dep packages are present in debian/control, and use
> > build-arch *only* when both are present. This does not require either
> > heuristic detection (the presence or absence of arch-indep/arch-dep packages
> > is *definitional* of whether a separate build-arch rule is relevant, and
> > dpkg-buildpackage already parses debian/control), or the use of redundant
> > declarations (i.e, Build-Options). Should we incorporate this into the
> > ballot options? (For the avoidance of combinatoric proliferation, I'd
> > prefer to decide this question by acclamation and either incorporate it into
> > all the ballot options, or not.)
> In the thread in debian-policy I also proposed [0] another small variation
> for this, which would imply a two stage transition, reducing the immediate
> simultaneous FTBFS. Jakub Wilk provided numbers [1] for the possible FTBFS
> on the non-staged scenario.
> [0] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/06/msg00026.html>
> [1] <http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2011/06/msg00018.html>
I think this is too much hair splitting. To be clear, I was proposing a
change to our *desired end state*, but that the ballot options to choose
between would otherwise remain the same - and I'm still in favor of getting
the ball rolling using the make -qn heuristic check. And if we're using the
heuristics to reduce the initial FTBFS set, another intermediate stage is
unnecessary.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: