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. On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:52:35PM +0000, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Then my suggestion (as discussed here in DebCamp) would be to rephrase that > paragraph rather then removing it entirely. > > What needs to be said is that if you have a package that builds the software > multiple times (e.g. once against gtk2, next against gtk3), you need to > define each of the build processes as build-a, build-b, etc. > > These build sub-targets need to be called from the build target and _must_ > _not_ be called from the binary target. This is a much bigger change than my proposal. In addition to the requirement that the build-a and build-b targets don't require root privs, it also requires that they be dependencies of the build target, or be invoked by that target. 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. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature