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

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

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:55:14 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> said: 

> On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 10:33:55PM +0100, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> 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?
>> ;-)

> It's one of the things that gets picked up and argued about on
> -policy when there's nothing better to do. Thus far this process has
> not resulted in changing policy, even though everybody involved
> knows its wrong.

	Wrong, yes, if you wish to stick to a pedantic implementation
 of rules, rather than trying to figure out the best solution going
 forward. To me, it sounds like the Build-Depends-Indep separation is
 a good idea; and dpkg should call build-arch if it exists. It is not
 as if it is rocket science to determine if  the target build-arch is
 present in ./debian/rules (or in a makefile included by

	Why not go the route which has most benefits in the long run,
 rather than regressing to "we never did it no other way"?


"God is more interested in your future and your relationships than you
are." Billy Graham
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: