Charles Plessy wrote: > it seems to me that the best way to materialise a consensus for a release goal > is to actually get it listed in http://release.debian.org/wheezy/goals.txt and > have the work started. This will protect the Policy from documenting options > that are not implemented. In line with this, > http://wiki.debian.org/PolicyChangesProcess > mentions “the proposed solution be known to work”.
Ok, I guess I still don't understand. Suppose http://release.debian.org/wheezy/goals.txt says that packages should support some DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS flag, maintainer can decide what name it is, to enable or suppress the full command line for the compiler and linker. Would that be progress? On the other hand, if you are saying that packagers should not wait for any official pronouncement to implement whatever DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=verbose/quiet option they please, then I would agree with you. xz-utils has supported DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=quiet for a while now. However, I thought Matthias was looking for something more consistent between packages, like making sure that logs are verbose when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS is unset (or making sure that logs are verbose when DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=verbose, whatever. Either way.) Hoping that clarifies a little, Jonathan -- 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/20111128072810.gb2...@elie.hsd1.il.comcast.net
