* Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050426 15:10]: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target > > > + <tt>source</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This > > > + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply > > > + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked > > > + source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules > > > + binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules source</prgn> > > > + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not > > > + fail. > > > > What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning > > of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy? > > Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy, > since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at > least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If > you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The > 'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have > this target isn't buggy at all. > > > (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record) > > Is that a formal second?
At least, this here is a formal second :) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
