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

Re: Build-Depends-Indep: debhelper, utilizing it in debian/rules clean

Andreas Metzler wrote:
> The main point was that your mail was suggesting that we might have
> 1000 packages in Debian with a hidden FTBFS bugs and I wanted to reject
> that, because bugs like #216747 will be found the first time the
> package is autobuilt.[1]

> [...]

> [1] Binary-all packages are not autobuilt, but if you build them you
> will install both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep anyway,
> therefore it is no FTBFS but a cosmetical issue (not following policy
> without any real harm).

Exactly. "Build-Depends-Indep: debhelper" source packages tend to
include "Architecture: all" binary packages. So, the described bug seems
to be quite popular, especially driven by lintian and linda, as noted by

Which severity (if "serious" seems to be exaggerated here) would it be?
Is it worthwhile to do at all? By following the thread, I guess not. But
then we need to work on Policy. What about redefining
Build-Depends-Indep by the implementation of buildds? ;-)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: