On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:18:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > Ahem, so I must quote it: > > #!/bin/sh -e > > tmp=`pwd`/debian/leave > > if echo $DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS | grep -vq noopt; then > optflag="-O2" > fi
> if echo $DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS | grep -vq nostrip; then > stripflag="-s" > fi Does not do a word-wise search for the option names, preventing future compatibility with other options having these options as substrings. Whereas the naive implementation using make would DTRT. So that's strike one. ;) > > > The whole idea that we're changing something in the build-arch handling > > > is a nice supporting argument for my idea that we don't have a reason to > > > hardcode make - the fact that we control the API means that we are able > > > to make this decision, rather than having to adjust to whatever some > > > semi-random program does. > > If you ignore all transitions constraints, sure. At the same time, Debian > > decided debian/rules must be a Makefile and you're not adjusting to cope. > No, "Debian" did not decide to explicitly ban non-shell rules files at any > point in time, it was a leftover from a text conversion that never got > fixed. I disagree with this interpretation of the history of the requirement (agreeing instead with Bdale), but if it would put this issue to rest, I would be happy to vote on it explicitly with the TC to require a makefile. The handful of exceptions have definitely caused us far more trouble as a project than any benefit you get as a maintainer from using a shell script in place of a makefile. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
