On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 04:22:43PM -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 Ok. In that case, some of the past discussions may be informative: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/07/msg00048.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/07/msg00113.html The main difference between the robustness of the implementations should be when faced with debian/rules that is not a policy-compliant makefile. > 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). That part is apparently trivial, as I seem to have written a patch for it 4 years ago :-) -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110604233919.gd24...@virgil.dodds.net
