* Kevin B. McCarty [Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:50:27 -0500]: Hi,
> So you may get a Policy bug filed for ignoring this recommendation of > section 4.8, but from my reading you are free to tag it "wontfix". In > any case, I've used the solution you suggest in some of my packages. No > Policy bugs filed against them yet (not that this means anything). > > Is this the correct work-around for this problem? or should I put the > > Build-Depends-Indep packages into Build-Depends and let the autobuilders > > build the docs, but not make them into packages (seems like this is a > > bad thing to do, since it increases build times and seems wasteful)? > This is of course the other possible workaround, which is technically > more Policy-compliant. I've used it in others of my packages. If your > documents' build is CPU-intensive, I think the waste of effort to > compile them on every arch outweighs the dubious benefit of technically > being more Policy-compliant this way. Another option worth mentioning would be to do nothing in build-indep if the necessary build-depends-indep are not installed. build-indep: if [ -x /usr/bin/foo ] && [ -x /usr/bin/bar ]; then \ foo; \ bar; \ fi Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]