Dear Gianfranco,
Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
> > > specially because in Debian we don't even use version.sh script to
> > > fill the dkms.conf file.
> >
> > I don't understand what you refer to with "in Debian". Do you mean the
> > fact that I didn't ship the package's upstream's version.sh? Do you
> > think I should?
>
> I think we shouldn't, because it is used/useful only at build time...
Thanks for your comment on this!
> > > Can you please remove the two lines?
> >
> > At least not in the way you propsed. Hence removing the tag "patch".
> >
> > > this is what we do to test dkms packages:
> > [...]
> > > dkms_pkg=$(bash -c ". $dkms_conf; echo \$PACKAGE_NAME" 2>/dev/null)
> > > dkms_ver=$(bash -c ". $dkms_conf; echo \$PACKAGE_VERSION" 2>/dev/null)
> >
> > You could do ". $dkms_conf > /dev/null"
>
> interesting, this works indeed:
[...]
> (and uploaded in sid)
Yay! :-)
> Honestly, I still think my patch is something sane to do (of course, as
> Debian specific patch), because of this done in rules file:
> override_dh_dkms:
> sed -e
> 's#`\./version.sh`#$(DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM)#;s#^PRE_BUILD="\(.*\)"#PRE_BUILD="\1
> $(DKMS_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS)"#' dkms.conf > debian/dkms
> dh_dkms
>
> so, in any case, that version.sh is *never* ran in Debian packaging,
> so the whole pushd/popd are useless in this context.
Yeah, and the version.sh call itself can be removed, too. Will do.
Thanks for bringing this up despite the initially differing opinions.
:-)
Regards, Axel
--
,''`. | Axel Beckert <[email protected]>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
`- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
