Jamie Strandboge writes:
> I agree that my suggestion is not as unambiguous as it could be. This
> was only one possible rewording. Perhaps using 'implemented' for the
> required targets would be sufficiently clear. Perhaps:
> "At a minimum, required targets must be implemented by debian/rules a
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > If the policy is to be read very strictly, then all of the required
> > targets must be present in debian/rules,
>
> That's wrong reading, it doesn't claim so. It has to contain the
> recipes - but it doesn't claim that they have to be in there dire
Gerfried Fuchs writes:
> Well, older lintian version surely also complain about other things
> that are in full compliance with both current practices and policy.
> That's why it switched to use "debian/rules -n $target" for tests these
> days. Using an older and buggy version of lintian is quit
* Jamie Strandboge [2009-07-13 16:39:43 CEST]:
> Section 4.9 of http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
> states that there a number of required targets for debian/rules.
> Specifically:
>
> "This file must be an executable makefile, and contains the
> package-specific recipes for
Jamie Strandboge writes:
> Section 4.9 of http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
> states that there a number of required targets for debian/rules.
> Specifically:
>
> "This file must be an executable makefile, and contains the
> package-specific recipes for compiling the package
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Section 4.9 of http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html
states that there a number of required targets for debian/rules.
Specifically:
"This file must be an executable makefile, and contains the
package-specific recipes for compiling the pac
6 matches
Mail list logo
