Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?
Goswin von Brederlow <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Based on the arguments I've seen so far, I'm opposed to using the
>> package's Standards-Version for this purpose. I think it conflates
>> different meanings of that field and will get us into serious trouble
>> when it comes to the distinctions between must, should, and
> | Policy 5.6.11 Standards-Version
> | The most recent version of the standards (the policy manual and
> | associated texts) with which the package complies.
> This field has exactly this meaning. It says the package followes a
> certain version of policy, e.g. the one where now there is a MUST
> instead of the previous RECOMMENDS.
You seem to be ignoring the end of second sentence of my paragraph above,
which I wrote precisely because I anticipated this argument. Could you
respond to it as well? Not every feature we care about is going to be a
I would much prefer to see a new control field that explicitly lists the
supported features. We're going to need that *anyway* for any feature
that's only a should or recommended and not a must (such as supporting
noopt or nostrip), and making every should into a must just so that we can
use this interpretation of Standards-Version is not a solution.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>