On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 03:33:58PM +0000, James Troup wrote: > > > Lintian says: > > > E: tkman source: build-depends-without-arch-dep > > > It is true that no architecture-dependent packages are built. However > > > dh_testdir > > > as part of the build target. Therefore I believe I should override > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > lintain. > > no, use Build-Depends-Indep and read the policy again > Err, no, don't. Perhaps _you_ should read policy again. > | `Build-Depends', `Build-Conflicts' > | The `Build-Depends' and `Build-Conflicts' fields must be > | satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: `build', > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | `binary', `binary-arch' and `binary-indep'. > | > | `Build-Depends-Indep', `Build-Conflicts-Indep' > | The `Build-Depends-Indep' and `Build-Conflicts-Indep' fields must > | be satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: > | `binary' and `binary-indep'.
I was bitten by this too (when packaging Alicq), and I wasn't smart enough to ask on this list :( If it is so confusing, looks like something must be done about it. I see two cases here: 1) Lintian error description should be fixed to cover such cases. I think special case is not a best idea to start with, though. 2) Policy should be updated to define more clearly the meaning of the difference between Build-* and Build-*-Indep. Maybe we shouldn't put debhelper calls into build target if we are not building architecture-dependent packages? Then `build-indep' should be added to the list of targets in the definition of Build-*-Indep, with proper comments added to debian/rules section. Can someone think about it? I haven't had a good sleep for two nights, so I am not sure if I am thinking straight right now. Sorry ;) -- Dmitry Borodaenko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
