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
./debian/rules).
Why not go the route which has most benefits in the long run,
rather than regressing to "we never did it no other way"?
manoj
--
"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: