* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [110606 20:59]: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2011 02:15:37 -0700, Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> wrote: > > If this were to be put to a vote today, I would propose the following ballot > > options: > > > > 1) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of > > 'debian/rules build' by checking for the presence of the target using > > 'make -qn'.[1] > > > > 2) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' with a fallback > > to 'debian/rules build' by checking whether the output of the build-arch > > target matches that of a dummy target.[2] > > > > 3) Implement support for calling 'debian/rules build-arch' in place of > > 'debian/rules build' if a Build-Options field is set in debian/control > > of the source package specifying that this target is supported.[3] > > > > 4) Turn on direct use of 'debian/rules build-arch' on the autobuilders for > > all packages in unstable and experimental immediately, with no fallback > > if the target does not exist; requires a corresponding update to Policy > > and mass updates to fix packages that fail to build as a result. > > > > 5) Further Discussion > > Steve and I discussed this on IRC for a while in advance of his posting > the email here, and I'm supportive of the TC voting on this to help > establish the plan for our next stable release. > > FWIW, if voting today I'd vote 12453.
Why 3 below 5? Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is think is sensible. My vote as of now would be something along 1254 (and unsure where to place 3, between 2 and 5, or 5 and 4). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
