On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 05:00:02PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Roger Leigh wrote: > > Additionally (not in the patch), I noticed that there is a great deal > > of similarity between the rules.arch, rules.indep and rules.multi > > files. Is there actually a need for these three separate files rather > > than simply having a single one (based on rules.multi)? > > It does not make sense to add build-arch support to rules.indep, which > is for wholely arch-indep packages. Nor the converse for rules.arch.
We currently have stub binary-arch and binary-indep for indep-only and arch-only packages. These are, of course, required by Policy. This is merely extending the same convention to the build rules, as an example of good practice, and to also ensure the complete set of Policy-defined targets are defined in all sample rules files. Once build-arch and build-indep are made a Policy requirement, the examples will need updating anyway, so this is just fixing them pre-emptively. If you choose not to apply the patch, please consider applying only the --prefix/DESTDIR fixes. The existing examples are buggy in this respect: misuse of --prefix to include the destdir is considered bad practice. Thanks, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
