Steve Langasek wrote:
> Given that you seem to have argued in this same mail for providing both an
> intermediate dpkg-buildpackage switch, and introducing a Build-Options field
> that would have to be populated manually, I'm a little unclear: do you think
> make-first-existing-target is a sufficient solution for the buildds, or not?
Sorry, I switched opinions mid-message. I think make-first-existing-target
is sufficient.
More precisely, what I meant to say was that before I had thought
carefully about it, approaches like Build-Options and so on were
appealing, but after your advice, make-first-existing-target seems like a
much better idea (because simpler and sufficient).
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:32:13PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Thanks much! If you'd like, I can try out the two patches from
>> Bug#598534 and send a comparison there.
>
> Thanks for the offer. How do you plan to try them out? Are you proposing a
> full-archive rebuild?
I am just going to try to break them. Cases like these:
A.
%:
dh $@
B.
build clean install binary-arch binary-indep binary:
dh $@
.PHONY: build-arch build-indep
C. something using cdbs
E.
... typical debian/rules, plus:
build-indep:
false
Meanwhile I would be happy to see progress on the dpkg-buildpackage
side. Once the pieces are together it should be possible to beg someone
to do a full archive rebuild before and after hitting the switch and list
packages that failed to build or whose binary packages changed in size
substantially (though as mentioned before, because "debian/rules
binary-arch" is suppposed to work on its own already, I'm not too worried
about it).
> I think it would be reasonable to let the MIA team know about Manoj's
> protracted absence (DevRef 7.4).
Good idea. Will do.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110604212201.GA32338@elie
