Hi Sascha,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:47:59AM +0100, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> However, since with the introduction of the new autopkgtests upstream’s test
> cases are often also installed in /usr/share/doc/…/examples, we see some
> cases of Makefiles containing build-specific directories ending up in binary
> packages, since the values for C(XX|PP)FLAGS etc. are propagated from the
> build environment into these files. An example is [1] where the value of
> CFLAGS is modified.
Ahhh, I have not realised that this Makefile is installed in hmmer2.
> I have found some more instances, and I have added some workarounds removing
> these problematic fields from the Makefile [2] to let them use the default if
> required — however, I am wondering whether these Makefiles should be
> installed at all. Cleaning them up would add quite a bit of overhead to the
> d/rules in each case and I am quite doubtful users would ever touch these
> Makefiles (if they even work at all).
> Any opinions or ideas?
Cleaning up the Makefile is fine after checking if it might have any
use. If it might make sense (for instance when running checks on
libraries as I'm doing in cimg-dev package) to use the Makefile we
should check for such pathes and normalise to some default.
Thanks for spotting
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
