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

Re: Build-Depends-Indep, please review

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 05:03:39PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes:
> > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 07:09:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> 
> >> Now why does it only list 8k sources if it matches the required
> >> "build:" target? Are 50% of all sources already dropping through that
> >> grep because they use dh ('%:') or include files?
> >
> > That's what I think, and a cursory look at a few gives the same
> > impression.  Which is surprisingly good--there's only a single
> > tool to update to get support added for a huge chunk of the
> > archive (well, there's cdbs as well of course, so it's two main
> > ones).
> I would think dh already supports them. So we might actuay have >50%
> coverage of binay-arch/indep already or verry close to it.
> Maybe we can actualy change policy post squeeze because the majority of
> sources supports it.

I checked, and dh currently doesn't support build-arch and build-indep
at all internally (you need to add the rules yourself).  I've made a
patch to add proper support which I'll submit once I've tested it.

I've submitted a proposed change to Policy to require the use
of these targets (#604397), but we need at least 50% coverage first.
But, we'll get that as soon as dh and cdbs support it.

We also need a lintian check to warn if these targets are missing;
but I'm not at all familiar with hacking on lintian.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: