Re: Consistent handling of the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:54:29PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 14:37:56 -0500
> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > And things shouldn't be "must" in policy unless they're intended to be RC
> > bugs. I don't see how this would ever make sense to be a "must".
> Why? Any test suite that runs compiled binaries must be completely
> disabled for cross-compiling and there are few test suites that would
> not be disabled under such a rule. Are you saying that cross compiling
> alone is not sufficiently important to be the cause of a *must* in
This *is* the same target for which you have to strip out changelogs because
you don't have room, right? Yet you want it to be an RC bug on OpenOffice
if the package runs a test suite at build time and doesn't support the
> Emdebian seeks to become a normal part of Debian in time, but things
> like this need to be in place before that can begin. I'm drowning in
> patches at this end, Steve!
Bugs in packages should always be fixed, and porters have always been
allowed a fairly free hand in NMUing where this was needed to advance a
port. Making things a "must" in policy should not be the first resort to
get maintainers to take care of their packages.
> Test suites are optional, no package needs to have them enabled just to
> build. They are nice and good and worth having but not at the expense
> of disabling large scale cross building.
Cross-building is nice and good and worth having, but not at the expense of
treating as release-critical a series of issues that have nothing to do with
what goes into Debian's releases today.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.