Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 10:23:54PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: >> Steve Langasek wrote: >> > Hmm, I'm not really sure whether that fits with policy's intent regarding >> > the effects of the debian/clean target. >> >> This must undo any effects that the `build' and `binary' targets >> may have had, except that it should leave alone any output files >> created in the parent directory by a run of a `binary' target. >> >> I don't see the conflict. There is an unstated intent that the clean target >> should not leave the package in an unbuildable state, but it doesn't if >> your rules file runs the autotools. > Agree. Is it reasonable to request a policy update with new wording? > Including: > > It should be possible to build the package multiple times.
s/should/must/ Maybe explicitly mentioning autotools is worth the effort, since this seems to be the only case where it is an issue, and might help to prevent people from inventing "false" uses. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
