On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:48:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > This kind of packaging, with some packaging files under debian/ having an > associated binary package name and some not, is an antipattern.
+1 (I also don't like packaging files without binary package name for single-binary source package, but that's just a matter of taste.) > I would like to suggest that in the next debhelper compat level, debhelper > should consider it an error when debian/control lists more than one binary > package, but contains unnamed packaging files under debian/. Or maybe start with a warning (maybe immediately) and then proceed to an error? I also wonder if a lintian warning might be helpful to get this going. (And I admit that I haven't checked if such a lintian tag exists but I can't remember seeing one.) Cheers, gregor -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
