On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:45:10PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:59:55PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:36:40PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: > > > > To summarize the proposals so far: > > > > > > > > - "Scan debian/rules, invoke build-arch if present". > > > > > > > > Has been tried, does not work. > > > > > > AFAIK it is working as long as you assume debian/rules to be a Makefile, > > > > No, that is not true. The code to do it that way had been added to dpkg > > 1.10.11 (from 2003!), but was pulled in 1.10.15, with the following > > changelog: > > Yeah, I know (it is quoted in the URL referenced in the IRC log). In > the same URL however, is the proposal from keybuk to use make -pn > instead of make -qn (the latter got used and later reverted in dpkg). > > The difference between the two is that -q checks whether a target is > uptodate and return an appropriate exit code, while -p prints out the > data base (i.e. the rules and variables) that results from reading the > Makefile. The latter seems more robust to me, so we should reevaluate > the "It is *not* possible *at all* to detect available targets in a > rules file." assertion, IMHO.
I would strongly suggest you to consider the "Build-Options: build-arch" solution I proposed that is going to be much more robust than any parsing of debian/rules. I am afraid the make -pn attempt will fail and that will postpone the resolution of this issue even more, like the -qn did. Beside that, the "Build-Options: build-arch" has been the product of a long discussion on debian-policy, does not assume debian/rules is a makefile and provide a general way to expand the dpkg building interface. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
