On Sun, 2018-11-25 at 14:12 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:58:57AM +0000, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, 11:30 Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net wrote: > > > > > Adrian Bunk: > > > > Package: debhelper > > > > Version: 11.5.2 > > > > Severity: serious > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd6 > > > 4/apcupsd.html > > > > > > > > ... > > > > dh clean --with autoreconf > > > > dh_auto_clean > > > > make V=1 -j16 clean > > > > make[1]: Entering directory '/build/1st/apcupsd-3.14.14' > > > > 1find . -depth \ > > > > \( -name -o -name -o -name \*.a \) \ > > > > -exec " CLEAN" \{\} \; -exec \{\} \; > > > > /bin/sh: 1: 1find: not found > > > > make[1]: *** [autoconf/targets.mak:98: clean] Error 127 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://sources.debian.org/src/apcupsd/3.14.14-2/autoconf/targets > > > .mak/#L98 > > > > > > > > > > > > Using V=1 for getting verbose build output is a relatively > > > > recent convention followed by some software. > > > > > > > > It is not something that is safe to use everywhere. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Adding Luca to this report as it affect a change by Luca. > > > > > > @Luca: What is your take on this? Should we roll back on this, > > > guard it > > > by a compat level or something else? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > ~Niels > > > > > > > Hi Niels and Adrian, > > Hi Luca, > > > Before considering other options, would using VERBOSE=1 instead of > > V=1 > > work? I'm afk until later today so I can't check right now if gmake > > accepts > > it, iirc it does but I could be confusing it with other tools. > > make happily accepts them, but this misses the problem. > > None of these options is supported directly by make. > > make just passes such options to the package-specific > Makefile that might do something or nothing with them.
Sorry, was on the phone and didn't properly read the snippet nor the link, thought it was make itself complaining (for some reasons - it didn't make much sense actually). Still, looking at that makefile, it would seem that using VERBOSE would do the right thing: https://sources.debian.org/src/apcupsd/3.14.14-2/autoconf/targets.mak/#L20 It would seem less likely, intuitively, that VERBOSE would be used in a similar way that would break the build if set to 1/0, so perhaps it's still the right fix? It does work with apcupsd for example, just tested it. iproute2, which is the package I added this for originally, works just fine likewise. In general, I realise that not every makefile might implement VERBOSE/V, but I think it's the most common pattern, so I think it's the best chance we have to support it automagically via debhelper. If some package uses a different set of variables for verbosity (or none at all), then they'll have to use overrides, but they'd be no worse than now - of course unless there are more breakages, in which case we can revert/use a compat level. Does this sound like a plan? If so, here's the MR: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/debhelper/merge_requests/16 -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
