Bill Allombert <bill.allomb...@math.u-bordeaux1.fr> writes: > The problematic hook is the following:
> + This split allows binary-only builds to not install the > + dependencies required for the <tt>build-indep</tt> > + target and skip any resource-intensive build tasks that > + are only required when building architecture-independent > + binary packages. > If you follow this recommendation, your package will potentially FTBFS due to > missing build-dependency on the buildd, unless it has been fixed. > I do not think this has seen real life testing at this stage. Ah! Yes. I understand your point now. However, this does work and is tested, as Jonathan pointed out. I can pull out just this part of the language if we need to (it's only a rephrasing of language that's already there, not new language, but I do pull out the footnote saying that it doesn't work properly), but I'd rather not. I think it's already working. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- 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/87wr0dmuln....@windlord.stanford.edu
