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

Bug#218893: Proposal: debian/rules.version file [Fix for the build-arch problem]



Hello,

I am offering a third patch that implement the Build-Options control
field proposal.

--- policy.sgml	Wed Oct 29 22:49:42 2003
+++ policy.sgml.new3	Wed Nov 12 21:25:12 2003
@@ -1856,15 +1856,6 @@
 	      </p>
 
 	      <p>
-		If one or both of the targets <tt>build-arch</tt> and
-		<tt>build-indep</tt> are not provided, then invoking
-		<file>debian/rules</file> with one of the not-provided
-		targets as arguments should produce a exit status code
-		of 2.  Usually this is provided automatically by make
-		if the target is missing.
-	      </p>
-
-	      <p>
 		The <tt>build-arch</tt> and <tt>build-indep</tt> targets
 		must not do anything that might require root privilege.
 	      </p>
@@ -2209,6 +2200,7 @@
 	    <item><qref id="f-Section"><tt>Section</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
 	    <item><qref id="f-Priority"><tt>Priority</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
 	    <item><qref id="sourcebinarydeps"><tt>Build-Depends</tt> et al</qref></item>
+	    <item><qref id="f-Build-Options"><tt>Build-Options</tt></qref> (optional)</item>
 	    <item><qref id="f-Standards-Version"><tt>Standards-Version</tt></qref> (recommended)</item>
 	  </list>
 	</p>
@@ -2575,6 +2567,19 @@
 	  </p>
 
 	</sect1>
+        <sect1 id="f-Build-Options">
+        <heading><tt>Build-Options</tt></heading>
+        <p>
+           The syntax is a list of options separated by
+	   commas that are implemented in the build process. 
+           The following options are defined:
+           <list>
+             <item> <tt>build-arch</tt> The optional targets "build-arch"
+                 and "build-indep" are implemented by <tt>debian/rules</tt>
+                 as defined in <ref id="debianrules">.  </item>
+           </list>
+        </p>
+        </sect1>
 
 	<sect1 id="f-Version">
 	  <heading><tt>Version</tt></heading>

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 



Reply to: