On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 12:05:56PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Bill Allombert <[email protected]> writes: > > > The problematic hook is the following: > > > + This split allows binary-only builds to not install the > > + dependencies required for the <tt>build-indep</tt> > > + target and skip any resource-intensive build tasks that > > + are only required when building architecture-independent > > + binary packages. > > > If you follow this recommendation, your package will potentially FTBFS due > > to > > missing build-dependency on the buildd, unless it has been fixed. > > I do not think this has seen real life testing at this stage. > > Ah! Yes. I understand your point now. However, this does work and is > tested, as Jonathan pointed out. > > I can pull out just this part of the language if we need to (it's only a > rephrasing of language that's already there, not new language, but I do > pull out the footnote saying that it doesn't work properly), but I'd > rather not. I think it's already working.
Well, if there have been real life testing then I lift my objection. Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120903205208.GC22907@yellowpig
