Re: Source package without a binary
> On 05/01/2012 18:26, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > So the logical conclusion is to build a binary package from the
> > source that contains nothing (or maybe a log of the test results)
> > and clearly states in its description that there is no point in
> > installing this binary package.
> > Is this something that we want to allow?
> You could build a binary package that just contains one file (the
> test suite log, maybe?). This way, anyone could check that the test
> suite was passed by the version of ghc being compiled by installing
> the binary package.
Yeah, that's pretty much what he already said. What he's asking is
whether this is actually a good idea, or whether there are better
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/