On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:11 +0200, Filippo Rusconi wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 02:11:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 13:46:30 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > > > > > No, policy is very clear on that: if you call the "build" target, you > > > _must_ satisfy Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep: > > > > > And policy is clearly not followed by any actual practice on this point. > > So that's as much a bug in policy as anything else (#374029). > > > > Cheers, > > Julien > > Well, but then, why have new packagers trained by studying the Policy? > > Look at my own situation (which must not be a rare one, I suppose): > I've worked to make a Debian package of the software I develop [0] > with the idea that the Debian Policy had to be implemented in the > package making. > > That software recently entered Debian through NEW and almost > immediately after that I got a FTBFS bug report [2]: pbuilder called > debian/rules build without installing the required > > Build-Depends-Indep: texlive-latex-extra, texlive-latex-recommended, > texlive-fonts-recommended > > which of course failed because pdflatex was not found on the system > and thus could not build the LaTeX docs of the software.
I don't understand. I maintain a bunch of packages with tex in Build-Depends-Indep, and autobuilders never have a problem with them. Why are they calling the build target, and not build-arch? -Adam -- GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6 Engineering consulting with open source tools http://www.opennovation.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
