On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:15:41PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Hi, > > > > That's true but so is it for any new feature unfortunately. And even with > > a flag day, once you have fixed the FTBFS, you're far from having benefits > > from that separation. Because most of the packages that do not FTBFS are > > still not converted to make usage of it. They would still run the same > > build process in both cases. > > One thought I had today was what will happen with packages using > either cdbs or dh. Both of these provide build-arch and build-indep > rules, and as a result both can build using those targets today > (though individual packages may of course be broken if they did > things in the wrong rules). However, each would require updating > individually to actually enable their use. Autodetection here would > prevent the need for this.
It would not. Currently autobuilder always only install Build-Depends, so 'debian/rules build' has to work with only Build-Depends installed. This means there has basically two cases for package having build-arch/build-indep: a) Packages do not have Build-Depends-Indep. b) Packages have Build-Depends-Indep but the documentation is built in binary-indep instead of build-indep. To get any advantage from this proposal, packages a) need to be changed to have a proper Build-Depends-Indep line. Packages b) already provides the split anyway. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- 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/20110607073959.GH8157@yellowpig
