Re: Should I override lintian (build-depends-without-arch-dep)?
On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:33:58PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > > Lintian says:
> > > E: tkman source: build-depends-without-arch-dep
> > > It is true that no architecture-dependent packages are built. However
> > > dh_testdir
> > > as part of the build target. Therefore I believe I should override
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > lintain.
> > no, use Build-Depends-Indep and read the policy again
> Err, no, don't. Perhaps _you_ should read policy again.
> | `Build-Depends', `Build-Conflicts'
> | The `Build-Depends' and `Build-Conflicts' fields must be
> | satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: `build',
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | `binary', `binary-arch' and `binary-indep'.
> |
> | `Build-Depends-Indep', `Build-Conflicts-Indep'
> | The `Build-Depends-Indep' and `Build-Conflicts-Indep' fields must
> | be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked:
> | `binary' and `binary-indep'.
I was bitten by this too (when packaging Alicq), and I wasn't smart
enough to ask on this list :( If it is so confusing, looks like
something must be done about it.
I see two cases here:
1) Lintian error description should be fixed to cover such cases. I
think special case is not a best idea to start with, though.
2) Policy should be updated to define more clearly the meaning of the
difference between Build-* and Build-*-Indep.
Maybe we shouldn't put debhelper calls into build target if we are not
building architecture-dependent packages? Then `build-indep' should be
added to the list of targets in the definition of Build-*-Indep, with
proper comments added to debian/rules section.
Can someone think about it? I haven't had a good sleep for two nights,
so I am not sure if I am thinking straight right now. Sorry ;)
--
Dmitry Borodaenko
Reply to: