On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:48:15AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As previously discussed, it's very difficult to comply with this directive > as written if one is following the autotools-dev recommendations for how > to regenerate the various autotools files. Before putting too much weight > on this directive, I'd really like to find some way of reconciling that, > since right now it's a frequently-violated dictate of Policy. > > Certainly, though, being unable to build a package twice is a bug that > should be reported against that package. (I actually don't know if any of > my packages have this problem; some of them have so many build > dependencies that I always build them in pbuilder chroot. Hm.)
I already proposed we change policy to require that doing debian/rules clean debian/rules binary debian/rules clean restore the tree to the state after the first "debian/rules clean" providing no packages were installed or upgraded in between. This way, it is allowable for debian/rules clean to remove or change files shipped in the tarball providing this is idempotent. (dpkg-buildpackage run debian/rules clean begore building the package by default). I also proposed a different way to deal with config.guess/config.sub that comply with the current policy. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large blue swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
