On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target > > + <tt>source</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This > > + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply > > + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked > > + source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules > > + binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules source</prgn> > > + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not > > + fail. > > What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning > of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy?
Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy, since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The 'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have this target isn't buggy at all. > (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record) Is that a formal second? (if so, please sign the mail) -- The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely one bananosecond -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
