On 2009-10-29, Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29 2009, Philipp Kern wrote: >> On 2009-10-29, Joerg Jaspert <jo...@debian.org> wrote: >>> It is not an overridable error, and I haven't seen any reason yet to >>> convince me to make it one. You do have some reasons, but none I have >>> seen that would not be simple to do in make directly as well. >>> As long as you have those packages wherever, feel free to do what you >>> want. Those you (want to) upload into Debian do need to follow policy. >> Looks like policy is in need of changing here. > Given that this policy rule i massively followed (all but one > set of packages from a single maintainer), that while there are a lot > of elegant languages and different ways to build packages, and we had > to chose one (I do not want to see ./debian/rules written in, say, > shoop or algo, or the ultimately elegant smalltalk), I see no reason > yet to change well established and uniformly followed policy.
I didn't say that, right? Please don't lay words into my mouth. I said "here" to specify the concrete case of policy describing the first n bytes of debian/rules despite the interface being completely in accordance with the normal procedures (i.e. being a Makefile and even make -f compliant). Lintian's executable-not-elf-or-script speaks about scripts in general but I don't see anything at first glance that specifies the first 3 bytes of executables that are not scripts in the policy neither. Regards, Philipp Kern -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
