On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:01:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > If they're built by the program, then anyone who wants to properly build > the software, even if they don't want to go all the way to the package, > will need to use the program, since people will write debian/rules such > that it assumes the program is in use. They'll assume default CFLAGS > are set and so forth.
> I don't think this is the right direction to go, but I'm not going to > stomp off in a huff if we go that direction or anything. :) But I do > want to be sure that we're all clear on what we're saying if we do take > that approach and make dpkg-buildpackage the only supported way to build > packages. I think it's likely that if we go that route, with it > providing the defaults, we'll find over time that some packages will > either not build or will mis-build with debian/rules build and no one > will notice or be particularly interested in fixing it. That's a fair point, and if preserving the behavior of debian/rules as a standalone is important to others, then I'm happy for us to find a solution that meets this requirement *as long as* it also avoids the pain of letting mandated "config" files arbitrarily modify the behavior of debian/rules. Robert Collins' suggestion in <1241989292.8026.20.ca...@lifeless-64> seems like a good approach for this, then (modulo the syntax bits, and putting the tool in the dpkg-* namespace instead of debhelper's namespace). -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
