On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 17:58 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > Not true. If you were not familiar with the special script, you > would > > have to read that entire script to understand what it does. OTOH, in > the > > make-only approach it is easier to discard the contents of > > alternate-debian-rules.mk entirely (since that special variable is, > > well, special). > > We have plenty of packages in the archive that have this problem while > being perfectly compliant with Policy's shebang requirement. I don't > see any point in trying to use the specter of obfuscated code to > justify this requirement.
I believe the point of said policy requirement is precisely that. Whether you can obfuscate in other ways is irrelevant. As you said, if the requirement is not needed, then it should be removed (I don't have a strong opinion on that). But the point that was being raised was that it was easier to read, and I pointed out where it wasn't true. -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
