Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I really don't think that declaring the majority of packages in Debian >> buggy in this fashion is viable, particularly when nearly all packages >> in Debian will not benefit from this. My guess is that something on >> the order of 1% of packages have a meaningful distinction between >> build-arch and build-indep, if that, but that includes some packages >> that benefit a *lot*. Wouldn't it be better to only have to work on >> modifying the packages that will specifically benefit instead of making >> every other package maintainer in Debian add a new target that really >> isn't meaningful for their package? > Already 25% of all packages do have the targets and I assume a lot > more than 1% to benefit. I'd be curious to see your reasoning there. All of my packages have build-arch and build-indep targets. None of them benefit from them at all. I expect many other people have similarly added the targets just because, or have the targets provided by a build system such as CDBS, even though they don't benefit. > Weigh that against the cost, adding a % to the build target or adding > 'build-%: build', for the packages without meaningful distinction. As many people have previously pointed out, that's not the real cost. I really don't see any justification for forcing all packages to change when we have a proposed solution that lets only the packages that benefit change. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
