On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:35:48PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Packages which do not benefit from a split build-arch / build-indep
> (and there are certainly a lot of packages which do not benefit)
> should continue to be allowed not to have such targets, without people
> or policy saying they are following a "deprecated format" or anything
> like that. Does this clarify my point?
Sorry to be blunt, but what part of "if optional targets are missing, do the
old thing" did you not understand? I used this exact phrasing in the second
mail to the bug.
> (What I dislike is a "format version", mandatory conversion of all
> packages to the new format in the long run, and all that).
What mandatory conversion to the new format in the long run?
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
