Bug#218893: Kicking this back to life
Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> writes:
> Hello Wouter,
>
> First thank for bringing back this issue, however...
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:17:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> The last post to this bug was done on 2004-08-23, which is ages ago. I
>> think it's safe to say that Bill's proposal (create
>> debian/rules.{version,targets} files which define what interfaces are
>> implemented by the debian/rules file) did not get enough seconds.
>
> ...for the record: the debian/rules.{version,targets} was not the final
> proposal. The final proposal was the addition of 'Build-Options' to
> debian/control and this proposal was drafted after input from all the
> people involved. This proposal is merely waiting for the dpkg
> maintainers to make a decision on bug #229357 rather than shelved. Some
> developers mentionned their willingness to second it.
I still think that adding an extra header is unneccessary. We already
have the standards version in the control file. The next standards
version could require the build-arch/indep targets to be present and
dpkg-buildpackage could test for the version.
This would, going by the letter, make existing packages in debian
buggy. BUT it would not make any package suddenly unbuildable and we
could easily enough restraing ourself from needlessly reporting this
as a bug till after etch.
For those who claim that requiring build-arch/indep tragets would
waste space in debian/rules a simple "build%:" target, meaning an
increase of 1 char, will do.
MfG
Goswin
PS: Has anyone counted how many sources don't have build-arch?
Reply to: