Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for lenny?"):
> Lo?c Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why not promote these to requirements in a particular policy version
> > instead? I fear we will have to list 10 Build-Options in all packages
> > in a couple of years.
This is a much better idea.
> Currently, policy says that it's recommended (the weakest policy
> directive) to support noopt and nostrip. My main concern with increasing
> the strength of that directive is that, depending on how demented the
> upstream build system is, it can be difficult to support these options,
> and since neither is used for regular builds in Debian, they're not
> usually tested and aren't necessary for properly functioning packages.
Surely we are planning to support these options in all packages
eventually ? In a package where it is difficult to separate out the
work for binary-indep, it would be acceptable to say:
binary-indep: binary
binary-arch: binary
binary: build
some stuff
?
I'm tempted to suggest _just_ going by the package's Standards-Version.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
