On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: > > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement > > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's > > basically what we have here.
> Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make include (which > you have issues with), or you stop supporting calling debian/rules directly > (inconvenient, probably prone to break things) I don't agree that "dpkg-buildpackage sets additional environment variables to implement a distro/site policy for builds" implies "calling debian/rules directly is unsupported". Or maybe I've misunderstood, and there are Debian developers who are building official packages for *upload* by calling debian/rules by hand, and that's what people are concerned about preserving while still getting the benefits of these distro build flags? I hadn't considered that possibility, because I can't imagine anyone wanting to build packages that way instead of using dpkg-buildpackage, which does it all in a single command. So I really don't consider that an important use case, weighed against the concerns I outlined. > For example, you possibly get something different depending on whether you > call debian/rules, dpkg-buildpackage, debuild, or pbuilder. And the > difference is hard to explain or analyze. Er, both debuild and pbuilder invoke dpkg-buildpackage. So it seems clear to me that the only difference would be when calling debian/rules directly, and at that point you're opting out of lots of other conveniences, not just distro build policy. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
