On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 16:07, Chris Lamb <[email protected]> wrote: > They could still be false-positives for new packages, no? As in, I'm > not really seeing your distinction here between fresh vs. existing > packaging. >
Yes, there's definitely a risk of false positives. But if a maintainer were about to upload a new package, or introduced changes to an existing package, that used DEB_BUILD* or DEB_TARGET* instead of DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH, I suspect the usage is most likely incorrect. Mmm, but unless I'm missing something these could still have false- > positives too? Can you give some concrete examples for this so we > aren't talking too much in the abstract here? > Here are a couple I was able to find quickly: https://salsa.debian.org/debichem-team/nwchem/commit/96a2bd29073d5f25c97fdf9ce0493857b31fcae0 https://salsa.debian.org/r-pkg-team/r-bioc-rhdf5lib/commit/00bd8caa6689bf048d4f0f654993b0402a74cedb
