Andreas Tille writes ("Re: Debian Policy released"):
> In other words: I'm fine with removing the target in rules and replace
> it by:
>     If there are reasons why uscan can not fetch the upstream source it
>     is recommended to provide a script debian/get-orig-source .
> If we do not provide *code* to get the upstream source and just settle
> to some (however vague) description in d/README.source random package
> developers who might work on a package will end up with different
> results.  This should not be the outcome of a policy change.

I'm not sure why you would change from a rules target to a custom

There is an argument that rules-as-makefile is not the ideal interface
and implementation strategy, but I doubt that here and now is the
right time to be making an accidental transition away from that.

If the only reason is that the docs for the target are being removed
from policy, then:

(i) The fact that a target is no longer documented in policy does not
mean it should not be provided; the fact that a target is being
removed from policy does not mean it should be removed from packages.
It means merely that the target's purpose and inclusion should be

(ii) You make a very good argument that policy should continue to give
guidance for this kind of situation.  The target should probably be
put back in policy, but with an explicit note saying it's not normally
desirable, or something.


Ian Jackson <>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address or, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply via email to