Hi Sean, On Do 03 Aug 2017 17:35:59 CEST, Sean Whitton wrote:
control: tag -1 +patch Hello Santiago, Mike, On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:15:28PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:Yes, indeed!Great, I'm happy we figured that out. I believe that my previous patch does indeed answer the concern you've raised. So once again, I'm seeking seconds for that patch.
I don't think that your patch solves the actual problem: Policy saying that build sub-targets should be handled from within the binary target. This is wrong by design IMHO.
Personally, that patch is to week for addressing this bug.
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:52:35PM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote:
[...]
Since the permission to have an empty build target has been in policy for a long time, imposing this requirement would make a lot of packages buggy. Changes to policy are not meant to do this. By contrast, my patch reflects a consensus that we can be confident already exists.
I am not saying that the build target must not be empty. I can be empty but the build-a ... build-n dependecies have to be moved away from the binary target and have to be made dependencies of the build target (which can only have deps but no own instructions).
And if that makes packages buggy, then they are actually quite buggy, because the build-a ... build-n get executed in a fakeroot concept by design of dpkg-buildpackage. And IMHO this should definitely be avoided.
? Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, herweg 7, 24357 fleckeby mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4354) 8390 139 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de
Attachment:
pgpdxKchwF9n1.pgp
Description: Digitale PGP-Signatur