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

Bug#604397: debian-policy: build-arch and build-indep targets are required

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:45:28AM +0100, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Roger Leigh <rleigh@debian.org>, 2010-11-21, 21:38:
>> I'd like to propose that build-arch and build-indep be changed in
>> Policy from "may be provided" to "must be provided" in preparation
>> for enabling their use.  We've wanted to fix the root problem for
>> at least half a decade, and I'd like to get it done for wheezy.
> The only source packages that could possibly benefit from
> build/build-arch/build-indep separation are those which build at least  
> one arch:all package and at least one non-arch:all package. How about  
> making the additional target obligatory only for them? If I calculated  
> correctly that would reduce number of source packages affected by this  
> transition from ~15K to ~2K.

That would make sense.  However, it should be noted that current
Policy requires binary-arch and binary-indep irrespective of if
any arch or indep packages are built, and it would be consistent
to require the same of the corresponding build targets.

>> This should probably also be accompanied by a new lintian check which
>> can warn if these rules are missing.
> I think we should be changing policy only after the lintian check is  
> implement and the majority of packages are fixed.


Just for the record, I've implemented support in debhelper's dh
command in #604563.  Once applied, this will automatically add support
to the huge chunk of the archive using "tiny" rules files.  cdbs will
be next on my list.  These two combined are, by a crude estimate,
grepping the lintian lab, approximately 50% of the total.


  .''`.  Roger Leigh
 : :' :  Debian GNU/Linux             http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
 `. `'   Printing on GNU/Linux?       http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
   `-    GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848   Please GPG sign your mail.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: