Re: RFC: Emacs add-on packages and make.
Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> I find it very strange that people want to compile these things in the
> postinst. Surely the point of having binary packages is so that
> programs don't have to be compiled on the user's system, with all the
> difficult issues that that creates ?
>
> Is there something I'm missing here ? Perhaps this has been discussed
> before, in which case I apologise for missing it and asking now.
You probably missed the initial debate. There were a couple of
discussions about this in the past, and then I decided to sit down and
hash it out. There was a semi-formal proposal to debian-policy, some
fairly lengthy debate, and in the end analysis, it seemed like
building in the postinst was the thing to do. Unfortunately, ATM I'm
much better at recalling the conclusions than I am the arguments.
Fortunately it looks like Manoj has summarized them pretty well later
in this thread. I'll comment there...
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: