On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 07:40:34PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > > As I've said before: Policy is either meant to document current > > practice or it's not. If it is, then it's wrong because the de facto > > implementation of build-depends disagrees with it _and always has > > done_ (or at least, it's not the buildds which have changed). If it's > > not, well... > > Well, probably the main reason we haven't hit this before is that most > people don't bother to do a proper arch/indep split in their packages, > and just stuff everything into Build-Depends. When I do it, I ignore what policy says and do what works. That means the build target is a no-op (or possibly an alias for build-arch), and everything else behaves as expected. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgpLfkGyqliUD.pgp
Description: PGP signature