Hi, it seems that my idea is not well received; point taken, and I do like the alternative about debian/rules creating debian/control in the clean target.
Nevertheless :-) Am Sonntag, den 17.06.2012, 13:39 +0200 schrieb Goswin von Brederlow: > I think that the sources-subvars target must function without any > Build-Depends-(Indep) installed because otherwise: > > - Checking out the source from RCS or downloading the source leaves the > source without full Build-Depends. Getting it from source gives you the .dsc file, so you do have the information. Getting it from RCS; well, that is not an official way for Debian to distribute sources so it is up to the maintainers what comfort level they’d provide. > - Without Build-Depends the source can not be build. > - Without build the sources-subvars can't be generated. > > and you are stuck in a vicious circle. Not so vicious if the missing build dependencies are obvious from possible error messages: If the build process complains about haskell library foo missing, you know you have to install libghc-foo-dev. > Similar for a debian/control target in debian/rules. Although there you > at least have the old Build-Depends to get you started. Not if you follow the rule that no auto-generated file should live in the VCS. As above, this is up to the maintainers to decide; cleanliness of the repo vs. comfort for the check-outer. > Overall I'm not sure the substvars would be better than a debian/control > target. I find generating debian/control somewhat of an hack (as it would be a hack go generate it when creating binary dependencies), but not a bad hack, hence I’m not reopening the bug. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
