Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Can we require build-arch/indep targets for > lenny?"):
>> Currently, policy says that it's recommended (the weakest policy >> directive) to support noopt and nostrip. My main concern with >> increasing the strength of that directive is that, depending on how >> demented the upstream build system is, it can be difficult to support >> these options, and since neither is used for regular builds in Debian, >> they're not usually tested and aren't necessary for properly >> functioning packages. > Surely we are planning to support these options in all packages > eventually ? It is certainly not clear to me that we're planning on supporting nostrip and noopt for all packages eventually. > I'm tempted to suggest _just_ going by the package's Standards-Version. Based on the arguments I've seen so far, I'm opposed to using the package's Standards-Version for this purpose. I think it conflates different meanings of that field and will get us into serious trouble when it comes to the distinctions between must, should, and recommended. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]