On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 01:42:03PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote: > > I also could have sworn that we recently tightened this requirement, > > but I can find no mention of that in changelog with some quick > > searches. Am I just imagining things? > It was tightened about 2 or 3 years ago, iirc.
See the previous policy bugs for this issue, 88111 and 148941:
> It'll have happened during Manoj's incorporation of the packaging-manual
> into policy. See 72949. You'll notice you seconded it... :)
-- http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2001/03/msg00020.html
While they might seem old enough to have been lost in history, they were
only actually closed in April last year...
> Regardless, even requiring debian/rules to be a makefile doesn't
> actually do much, because someone could do something like:
> .DEFAULT:
> debian/irule $@
> or whatever.
> People should be using make, but if they have a valid reason for doing
> something else, policy shouldn't get in the way.
And policy doesn't get in their way, because they can just do the above...
Benefits of using a makefile include (as discussed in the previous
bug reports),
> Also the debian/rules VAR=VALUE ... syntax is used by dpkg-buildpackage.
> debian/rules [variable=value ...] target [variable=value ...]
> exit: 0 if OK, non-0 otherwise
> debian/rules -q target
> exit: 2 if target cannot be built (doesn't exist), non-2 otherwise
It looks like there was more in the thread than the bug log.
Cheers,
aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
