* Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> [110604 05:27]:
> If we're willing to flip the switch on the autobuilders and force
> maintainers to deal with the breakage, we don't need a policy "should"
> either... we can go straight to a policy "must" as soon as the switch is
> flipped (and we should flip that switch *ASAP*, not let this question drag
> on any further into the release cycle).
Having seen this discussion now for almost a decade with people claiming
smooth transitions coming really soon, I think this is the only way
unless someone can actually show something for the buildds working now
(and not in some months, because it has been months for years now).
> > It probably needs a little more polish (testsuite support) before it can
> > be applied, but the core checks are done.
>
> Unfortunately I see the same problem with this lintian check as with all the
> rest - if we can actually check for the existence of the target *reliably*,
> then we don't need to enforce its presence at all.
Lintian checks do not need to be as reliable. (Reliable tests are
better, but hardly any lintian check is as reliable to an extent people
seem to require for a build time build-arch check.)
Bernhard R. Link
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/20110604101745.ga30...@pcpool00.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de
