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

Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?

Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:

> Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
>>> I really don't think that declaring the majority of packages in Debian
>>> buggy in this fashion is viable, particularly when nearly all packages
>>> in Debian will not benefit from this.  My guess is that something on
>>> the order of 1% of packages have a meaningful distinction between
>>> build-arch and build-indep, if that, but that includes some packages
>>> that benefit a *lot*.  Wouldn't it be better to only have to work on
>>> modifying the packages that will specifically benefit instead of making
>>> every other package maintainer in Debian add a new target that really
>>> isn't meaningful for their package?
>> Already 25% of all packages do have the targets and I assume a lot
>> more than 1% to benefit.
> I'd be curious to see your reasoning there.
> All of my packages have build-arch and build-indep targets.  None of them
> benefit from them at all.  I expect many other people have similarly added
> the targets just because, or have the targets provided by a build system
> such as CDBS, even though they don't benefit.

For example how many sources have a tex file that they run through
latex for a -doc package?

grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends tetex ftp.de.debian.org_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources -s Package | wc -l 

That alone is already 1%.

There might be more involved than just adding the build-arch target to
actualy benefit from it but I see a lot more potential than 1%.

>> Weigh that against the cost, adding a % to the build target or adding
>> 'build-%: build', for the packages without meaningful distinction.
> As many people have previously pointed out, that's not the real cost.

There is nothing else costing anything because there is nothing else
to do when the package has no meaningful distinction. You might
disagree what the cost of it is but that is the only thing causing the

> I really don't see any justification for forcing all packages to change
> when we have a proposed solution that lets only the packages that benefit
> change.

And I don't see the need to invent some field when it is not needed.

Anyway, as long as it gets solved I'm happy. But please people, solve


Reply to: