[...] > > Build a development version of the vdr-plugin-* package from the same > source, but using the API of the development version of VDR and with a > different binary package name: > > SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel dpkg-buildpackage -tc -uc -us -rfakeroot > > This way it works out-of-the-box with all the various build tools. >
Why don't you provide a script like debian/make-special-rules such that debian/make-special-rules dpkg-buildpackage -tc -uc -us -rfakeroot does the job? I'm sure you already considered this idea, so would you mind explaining why this does not work? Obviously you can tell your users/developers that calling this script is required just as you documented the SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX thingy. > >From our point of view this is so easy to do and so easy to maintain (it's > working quite well for over 2 years now), that this very specific > requirement of the policy just seems to be a useless piece of bureaucratic > over-specificiation. > > We are still thinking about different solutions, not requiring to change > the shebang line. But as said before - it's not that easy and it will most > likely increase the complexity of debian/rules. A lot of pain, without a > gain :-) > [...] I think Manoj already explained quite well why policy is that specific about a single line. And apparently thousands of packages adhere to policy in this case, so it's somewhat dubious that only VDR-related packages cannot cope with it. I understand that any solution must remain easy to use and of course also easy to maintain. But a hackish shebang line cannot be the only way to achieve this. Best, Michael
pgpXE7xLSaUKN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
