Hi Russ,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 10:12:13AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
> > The Technical Committee has sufficient authority to address this
> > question under any of §6.1.{1,2,4,5}. If you prefer, we could also ask
> > for a referral from the policy editors or the dpkg maintainers, to
> > eliminate any question of supermajority requirements.
> I'm happy to provide a referral from Policy. I think resolving this in
> the tech-ctte is a great idea.
Ok, thanks!
> > My own vote would likely be: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4. (I could be persuaded to
> > rank 4 above FD if this were the only way to move forward; but that's
> > indisputably the most disruptive to the archive, so I would hope we
> > could reach agreement that some or all of the other options are better.)
> So that people know, my vote would probably be something like:
> 2, 4, 1, 3, 5
> I'm worried that make -qn is going to be too fragile. That method has
> been tried before in Lintian checks IIRC and didn't work well.
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.
--
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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature