On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 07:10:36PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Peter Pentchev wrote: > > Oh... I think I see it now - it's just that it's an information notice, > > not a warning or an error. In that case, it might be that it's your > > call to decide to ignore it - and if so, sorry for the wasted time > > again, and thanks for your response! Should I close the bug, or will you? > > I don't understand why lintian emits even an I: for this. Policy does > not seems to require splititng B-D in this case; there is no value in > doing do; it is difficult and faulure-prone to do so; it can apparently > require lintian overrides to get the split right, as we see in your > patch. > > Given all these, maybe reassign to lintian?
Come to think of it, you're absolutely right - an arch-all package really *is* built only once, so just a single buildd gets to install all the dependencies, so there should be no need to split them indeed. I think I could look into lintian's code tomorrow and maybe even come up with a patch suggestion. You could reassign it earlier if you like. Thanks again! G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev r...@ringlet.net r...@space.bg r...@freebsd.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before?
pgpIgMM5EyBMt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
