On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 11:00:55PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > It's not just the computing resources required that concern me, it's > also the effort involved in doing it and the disruption that could be > caused, especially if we were to do things like changing autotools > versions underneath the package. I think by doing things the gcc-way, there shouldn't be much trouble at all, and as far as there is, we can delay it until we have time (by waiting with the upgrade). But if this is a concern for many people, it is of course possible to do it in a separate (but not optional, IMO) target. It should be defined in a way which allows easy building of the binary package from real source. (This should be the normal situation if you call it before dpkg-buildpackage. However, it should be mandated that this really works, and that the normal build doesn't still use some other generated files.) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature