On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > + <tt>source</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This
> > > + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> > > + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked
> > > + source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules
> > > + binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules source</prgn>
> > > + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not
> > > + fail.
> >
> > What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning
> > of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy?
>
> Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy,
> since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at
> least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If
> you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The
> 'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have
> this target isn't buggy at all.
Yeah, but I know quite a few older packages that contain a snippet like:
source diff:
@echo >&2 'source and diff are obsolete - use dpkg-source -b'; false
Don't know why, this must be way before my time in Debian...
It would be good to check for the amount of packages affected by that
nevertheless.
> > (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record)
>
> Is that a formal second?
Not (yet).
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
