Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > - "If a package has both Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep, it > MUST have a build-arch target"
> Would probably catch 95% of all cases. So far, I know no existing > packages that don't have those targets but use both B-D and B-D-I. I know tons of such packages, namely all arch-independent Perl modules that use debhelper with proper dependencies. You have to put anything required during debian/rules clean into B-D, not B-D-I. However, the buildds won't see such packages, so that lack of compliance with this proposal may not hurt. But then it reduces to your next proposal. > - "If a package has Build-Depends-Indep and is to be autobuilt, it > MUST have a build-arch target" > This would be special treatment for the autobuilders. Would work in more > cases than the check for both B-D and B-D-I though. As we cannot know > before the build whether a package will build any arch-dependent > packages, we can only guess here. To gain something here, we would have > to check whether any binaries for other architectures already exist, and > only in this case build-arch could be invoked. Talk about ugly. I think the way of phrasing this is "if the source package has both arch-specific and arch: all binary packages and B-D-I, it must have build-arch and build-indep targets." It's a pain to have the policy be this conditional, but I think this is going to make the fewest packages buggy while still accomplishing the goal. > - "Turn the SHOULD into a MUST in policy and have dpkg-buildpackage > check the Standards-Version" Checking the standards version for this sort of thing seems rather evil to me, but maybe I'm too conservative. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
