Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> writes: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 09:12:37PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 08:23:42AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > > > > Should Lintian's recommendation be changed? > > > > > > Quite possibly, I'm sure the lintian maintainers would be happy to > > > have improved help text. I didn't write it with dh in mind > > > > Okay. (Thanks for writing it.) > > > > If you [Roger Leigh] were to write [the Lintian recommendation for > > the set of ‘build*’ targets] with ‘dh’ in mind, what would be the > > recommended set of explicit targets? > > Errrr... just "%", I guess :) The ‘%:’ rule is the opposite of explicit :-) which is why I asked Roger what the set of explicit targets should be in Lintian's recommendation. So, you're arguing for “no explicit targets when using ‘dh’”, right? I've already given my reasons not to want that. I'm still interested in Roger's response to the above. -- \ "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are | `\ fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." —“Lord” George | _o__) Gordon Noel Byron | Ben Finney
Attachment:
pgpmcFZYphDCE.pgp
Description: PGP signature