On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 12:18:53AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 02:41:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > Bill Allombert <Bill.Allombert@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > > > On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:45:25PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > > > > > For the record (and for anyone following this bug), we should hold on > > > > action on this until the TC decides the way forward for build-arch. > > > > > Note that I did not ask for second. > > > However lintian does not appear to be exercising such restrain: > > > > The other advantage of Lintian warning on this is that it means we're now > > collecting that data for the whole archive. > > Not my point. Maybe you missed the line > > N: These targets will be required by policy in the future, so should be > N: added to prevent future breakage. > > which is basically assuming the outcome (and leads the reader to believe that > a decision has been reached while the issue is still under discussion). As the author of the above, apologies if this was too presumptive. However, it was my understanding from the discussion that the proposals being discussed here are basically about how best to realise the goal of having build-arch and build-indep implemented; I thought that the goal itself was relatively uncontroversial, but the means of achieving it were still under discussion. The lintian text can easily be changed if needed. Regards, Roger -- .''`. 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