On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > *Sigh*. > __> make -pn build-arch | grep '^build-arch' > build-arch: > OK?
Dude, there's no need to sigh out loudly; "make -pn $target" doesn't change anything, but you didn't even read the rest of my point: that packages were *already* using build-% and that this was not a proper test to see whether a package is implementing build-arch... It's really saddening to not even be read but to get a condescending reply. > > > Yes, we can do it in other ways, such as defining which flags or env > > > vars have to be honored, or which files have to be read. > > Right. We can re-invent the wheel on our own, in a classic > > example of NIH, for absolutely no reason -- apart from not liking a > > solution that is already in place. > > > We already proved the use over many more years of env vars passed to > > debian/rules, arguments passed on the command-line, or of data in > > debian/control. Proposing to use the new channels such as makefile > > inclusion or querying for the implemented rules is looking for trouble > > and discourages other options. > > What new channel? This channel (./debian/rules as a Makfile) > has been in practice since around 1996, and in policy as a mUST since > 2001 (which was, I think, before you became a DD). (Condescending again.) The new channels are "makefile inclusion" and "querying for implemented rules". Requiring that my debian/rules be include-able in any other Makefile or that you can query my debian/rules for some specific targets sets constraints which have not been required before, even if it was required that debian/rules be "a makefile". > If you think it is new, you must not really have read policy > very well. The "new *channels*". > > I'm not under the impression that you're still open-minded on the > > topic, and since you're one of our beloved policy maintainers, and make > > maintainer, I don't think it's worth our time to repeat the arguments > > which have already been made. > > Ah. Argumentum ad Hominem. "I can't refute Manoj's arguments, so > let us paint him as an irrational bigot". I am going to ignore this as > the logical fallacy that it is. I didn't say you were irrational; still your response vastly proves my point: that you're not reading in a mindset where you could reconsider your position. -- Loïc Minier
