Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense

2003-01-28 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Hi Julian! You wrote: > No: if binary-arch depends (in a Makefile sense) on build, then you're > not actually "invoking" build, and your make can do what it likes, as > long as you only need the Build-Depends packages. If you make build, > then you should require both Build-Depends and Build-Dep

Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense

2003-01-28 Thread Julian Gilbey
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 08:11:34PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: > Package: debian-policy > Version: 3.5.8.0 > Severity: important > > Currently, policy says that following about Build-Depends-Indep (section > 7.6): > > | The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields must be > | satisfi

Bug#178809: rules for Build-Depends-Indep satisfaction make no sense

2003-01-28 Thread Bas Zoetekouw
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.5.8.0 Severity: important Currently, policy says that following about Build-Depends-Indep (section 7.6): | The Build-Depends-Indep and Build-Conflicts-Indep fields must be | satisfied when any of the following targets is invoked: build, clean, | build-indep, bin

Re: Asking for a new pseudo package in the BTS: l10n-french

2003-01-28 Thread Martin Quinson
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 at 22:53:52 +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:51:45AM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 08:49:15PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote: > > > > > I'm not convinced. Everything you say can be done perfectly well thru > > > mailing lists. > >