On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:20:31AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 12:25:37AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > > 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.allomb...@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. > > If you want that, create a policy proposal to that effect, CC debian-devel, > foster > a constructive discussion and get two seconds, so a real consensus can be > reached. So far, about 3 developpers voiced an opinion. This is insufficient. > > I am all for implementing the build-arch/build-indep split properly (I > implemented the initial dh-make template for build-arch/build-indep split > which > a large number of debian/rules is still based). > However, asking source packages that build only one of arch-all/arch-indep to > implement build-arch/build-indep is useless and a waste of effort. This will > train developers to add > build-arch: build > build-indep: build > to debian/rules without further consideration. > > Instead we should focus on the smaller number of packages that provide both > arch-all/arch-indep and make sure build-arch actually only build the arch-all > part and build-indep the arch-indep part. > We could use that opportunuity to implement Build-Options: build-arch and > proper Build-Depends/Build-Depends-Indep split. > > Then we would have achieved something. Just adding build-arch: build to all > packages > does not.
This is something which the -ctte might want to bear in mind in their considerations. It's probably best to wait until the current issue (dpkg-buildpackage support for build-arch/indep) is finished before making further changes to lintian. Personally, I'd like to aim for complete support archive-wide. It means everything is consistent, and it means all the binary targets have a corresponding build target. Overall, it simplifies things and will in the long run make our tools more capable and robust. We do require all packages to implement binary-arch/indep irrespective of the package types being built, and IMO we should make the same requirement of build-arch/indep. There is no harm in encouraging adoption of the targets! 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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
