On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 12:10:28PM +0200, Francisco Moya wrote: [...] > > Debian Policy only knows as much as what we put in it. Therefore it > > isn't almighty, and it *certainly* isn't a stick to beat people with, as > > you're trying to do here. The fact that some insanity isn't in > > policy doesn't mean you should suddenly start doing it in your > > package. > > It was not my intention to use Policy as a stick but as the only > authoritative argument I was willing to accept for destructive "DO NOT > DO THAT" statements without further argumentation.
Well, I did give you two more paragraphs of argumentation, actually, but okay. [...] > > Changing the behaviour o your debian/rules file based on the > > architecture you're trying to build on, is a *very* bad idea, > > policy or no policy. If you really, *really* must make sure that > > build-indep isn't ran everywhere, then read Policy 4.9, `build', > > paragraph 2: > [...] > > I'm sure you understand what I mean here. > > Not really. This paragraph applies when the build target does not make > much sense. But zeroc-ice builds a single tree and building the whole > package does really make sense. I think you're reading more in that paragraph than is meant; it says "For some packages, notably ones where the same source tree is compiled in different ways (...)", not "For packages where the same source tree is compiled in different ways (...)", which to me suggests it can apply to other cases too rather than just the given example. YMMV, of course. > In any case I think the next release will be acceptable to you, as long > as it does more or less the same as package orsa. Perhaps. I do think that if you say "dpkg-buildpackage" without any argument, it should either build all packages (if possible) or fail (if not possible on that architecture or for some other reason). This makes it clear that some particular thing isn't supported on a particular place, and makes the lives of other people not familiar with your package easier. If your setup will do this by having binary-indep depend on build-indep, then yes, that sounds like something sane. If not, I seriously urge you to reconsider. But as you rightly point out, there's nothing in policy to back that up for me, so I'll shut up about that now. What *is* in policy for me to ask you, though, is that if you do something insane like not having 'dpkg-buildpackage' fail if binary-indep can't be built for some reason, you should document that in debian/README.source; see policy 4.14. Lucky me that proposal of mine got into policy a few months ago :-) -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
