Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?
- From: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:20:36 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070618192202.GA8545@master.debian.org> <email@example.com> <20070619140430.GF1973@paranoidfreak.co.uk> <20070619174151.GA27959@master.debian.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070626231908.GA17847@kitenet.net> <20070627093415.GB22635@bee.dooz.org> <email@example.com>
Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?"):
> Lo?c Minier <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Why not promote these to requirements in a particular policy version
> > instead? I fear we will have to list 10 Build-Options in all packages
> > in a couple of years.
This is a much better idea.
> Currently, policy says that it's recommended (the weakest policy
> directive) to support noopt and nostrip. My main concern with increasing
> the strength of that directive is that, depending on how demented the
> upstream build system is, it can be difficult to support these options,
> and since neither is used for regular builds in Debian, they're not
> usually tested and aren't necessary for properly functioning packages.
Surely we are planning to support these options in all packages
eventually ? In a package where it is difficult to separate out the
work for binary-indep, it would be acceptable to say:
I'm tempted to suggest _just_ going by the package's Standards-Version.