On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:30:56AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> RC bug, get the package removed until the rules file is readable.
> This just convinces me that debian/rules MUST be a makefile.
This section comes from the packaging-manual, so I guess the must/should
stuff hasn't really been reviewed that well. I fail to see why this ought
to be a must. We don't legislate that the .c files in a package should be
reasable. Heck, we don't legislate that the rules file must be readable.
Who does it harm to have an unreadable shell script rather than an
unreadable makefile as debian/rules? Does it break the autobuilders? Does
it break systems once the package is installed? Does it do anything but
make it harder to release?
> I'm just
> going to go and file an important bug against shoop, along with
> another one for having version number 1.0 yet not being a native
> package (perhaps that's wrong as he appears to be an upstream devel as
> well).
Uh, the version number's 0.1, not 1.0, and it is packaged as a native
package. There's nothing wrong with that.
> Maybe I should up the severity to RC for the time being?
God no.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
-- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)
Attachment:
pgpPHX9xpiUAF.pgp
Description: PGP signature