* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120326 20:58]: > Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > > > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus > > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw > > dh: > > > A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the > > same interface as a debian/rules file implemented as a makefile > > (including handling of arguments and exit status). Debian Policy > > should be updated to change the requirement to a recommendation, and > > new versions of the leave package should be permitted to be uploaded to > > the archive without changing debian/rules to be a makefile. > > > B. The Technical Committee affirms the Debian Policy requirement that > > debian/rules must be a makefile. All packages in the archive, > > including leave, are required to follow this requirement. This > > makefile may, as is common practice, delegate implementation of its > > targets to a script. > > > C. Further discussion. > > Reminder: there is a vote currently in progress on this ballot. So far, > only Ian and I have voted. Please take a look at the cited bug and > register an opinion when you have a chance.
Thanks for the reminder. Voting BAC. (I'm not convinced that we gain anything by changing the status quo to the proposed solution A - even though with the current makefiles consisting of just "%: dh $@" the degault mechanismn seems a bit too complicated; but changing that to variant A doesn't seem to be too useful. Also, the tech ctte isn't the place to develop new solutions; in other words, if someone comes up with a good solution which has shown through the usual ways that it gains something for debian at large, I'm happy to support changing the default but we're not there (yet).) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
