Bug#604397: Request for TC to rule on a course of action for supporting build-arch
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 09:29:12AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 04:02:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > (Sending this to 629385@bugs.debian.org, which is the cloned bug actually
> > assigned to the TC...)
Too much magic, but thanks anyway.
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 12:06:18AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > The proposal 3) (which is implemented in dpkg as of today) was devised
> > > following a discussion in Debian policy bug #218893 as a compromise
> > > solution that was agreeable to everyone, then a patch to dpkg was written (bug
> > > #229357). For reasons beyond my control, the patch was actually merged only
> > > today.
> >
> > I think your read that this was a "compromise solution that was agreeable to
> > everyone" is incorrect. Scott James Remnant (a dpkg maintainer at the time)
> > raised in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=218893#345 the
> > same objection about fragility that others have raised since.
Scott was not yet the dpkg maintainer when the discussion occurred.
> Scott did not take part in the initial discussion, so there was no way his objection
> would be taken into account.
... but Scott has been the maintainer of dpkg for a sufficiently long time to
implement autodetection if he wanted to, but he did not manage to do it.
And that is the major reason I not impressed by autodetection: it is proposed
every few year as the silver bullet to fix that issue, but it never materialize
while putting the other options to the backburner, and only fix half of the problem
(packages still have to be changed to split Build-Depends-Indep from Build-Depends).
Cheers,
--
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>
Imagine a large red swirl here.
Reply to: