On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 14:14 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > I'm rather umconfortable with this request, because as has been > discussed many many times on the lists, the source package interface > is debian/rules, and not dpkg-buildpackage. Making that file optional > breaks that interface, which I don't think is good.
Good point, I'd forgotten about this. In practice (AFAIK) all of our tools invoke dpkg-buildpackage rather than debian/rules so I wonder if it is time to change this in policy, perhaps not. Anyway, thanks for the thoughts and please do watch the debdry discussion. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
