* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110606 22:05]: > Andreas Barth <a...@not.so.argh.org> writes: > > > Option 1 also implies forcing debian/rules to be a Makefile, which is > > think is sensible. > > Policy already requires this. The only package in the archive for which > this is not already the case is "leave".
Sure, but there's a difference between requiring it and enforcing it. Not that I think that's bad, but at least we should speak out that side-effect. > I don't like option #3 because it's something we'll be stuck with forever > and requires packagers update both debian/rules and debian/control to > configure things properly. Ok, that puts #3 below #5. > One of the reasons why I'm personally fond of > #4 is that it reduces our long-term complexity. We could always upgrade #1 and #2 to #4. However, I don't think I'd like to introduce a new way to mass-fail packages (if someone provides numbers that this are only few packages, things might be different, but I don't think that's already the case - if in a few years time that's fixed, great.). Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110606202049.gt15...@mails.so.argh.org
