On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:15:14PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Wouter,
>
> First thank for bringing back this issue, however...
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2006 at 10:17:01PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The last post to this bug was done on 2004-08-23, which is ages ago. I
> > think it's safe to say that Bill's proposal (create
> > debian/rules.{version,targets} files which define what interfaces are
> > implemented by the debian/rules file) did not get enough seconds.
>
> ...for the record: the debian/rules.{version,targets} was not the final
> proposal. The final proposal was the addition of 'Build-Options' to
> debian/control and this proposal was drafted after input from all the
> people involved.
Oh? Must've missed that, then.
> This proposal is merely waiting for the dpkg
> maintainers to make a decision on bug #229357 rather than shelved. Some
> developers mentionned their willingness to second it.
>
> As for your proposal: at the time of the discussion, the dpkg maintainer
> made it clear it was not an option.
I disagree (I went through the bug's log before providing the patch); He
made clear that the debian/rules.* stuff was not an option in his eyes,
but I didn't see him mention that making build-{arch,indep} would not be
what he wanted to happen.
Of course, I didn't read every letter of every mail, so I could've
missed it.
> Since there are new dpkg maintainers, I asked them on Thu, 19 Jan 2006,
> what was their opinion on the matter and whether they would accept my
> proposal or yours. So far I did not get any answer.
>
> I consider such answer to be a precondition to any useful subsequent
> discussion on this topic.
Fair enough.
I proposed this patch because I had not seen any action and therefore
assumed nothing was happening anymore. If that's wrong, so much the
better.
[...]
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
