On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Michael Tautschnig schrieb:
>
>> I think Manoj already explained quite well why policy is that specific about
>> a
>> single line.
>
> And I explaind why the policy is over specific in this case :-)
No. You opined that the policy is over specific, but with little
rationale beyond "I think this is so".
I think that
1. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel make -f debian/rules build
2. make -f debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
3. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel ./debian/rules build
4. ./debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
Giving you differing results is confusing enough to anyone
building the packages manually (You know, as free software folks, the
buildds are not the sole focus of our packaging) that I think it is
good that the policy is specific enough to block these.
I think it would be a good idea to _add_ to policy a rule that
says that "make -f debian/rules" and "./debian/rules" must behave
identically, to prevent confusion, and to promote reproducibility, and
conform to the principle of least surprise.
manoj
--
Imagine what we can imagine! Arthur Rubinstein
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
