On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:56:10PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 11:09:23AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote: > > > dpkg-buildpackage and policy over. Note that it will break in pretty > > > much the same way as #216492 (subject of this thread) if the rules > > > file has not been converted to your scheme. > > > > It will not break anything: > > > > 1) old debian/rules, new dpkg-buildpackages: > > > > debian/rules build BUILD=build-arch > > > > since BUILD is not used in debian/rules, this is equivalent to > > debian/rules build > > which is OK. > > Did you read what I wrote? Or bug #216492?
I am afraid you are right, I solved the wrong problem. But explaining your point a bit more verbosely would not harm anybody and prevent such mistake, I expect. So I come up with a different proposal: Introducing a new file, say debian/rules.version. If this file does not exist, we declare that version=0, else version=`cat debian/rules.version`. Currently 2 versions are defined: 0: debian/rules support rules described as mandatory by policy. 1: as 0, but debian/rules also support build-arch and build-indep. Future version of policy can define higher version. dpkg-buildpackage just need to read this file before deciding whether it can call debian/rules build-arch. What do you think ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
