Hi Ole,

On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 09:35:39AM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 09:22:35PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> > Hmmmm,
> > but no --udd option for the /usr/share/blends-dev/blend-gen-control
> > call.  How are you triggering the UDD option at your side?
> Inside of blend-gen-control, see
> https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/blends/commit/dc6f7bc9.patch :
> if 'GENCONTROL_OPTS' in os.environ:
>     opts = parser.parse_args(os.environ['GENCONTROL_OPTS'].split())
>     parser.set_defaults(**opts.__dict__)

I've read this - but how did you actually *used* this setting.
What are you doing on your side to trigger the UDD option?

I admit I'm in doubt with all my Makefile knowledge.  Something is
really wrong.  Please have a short look at my short test Makefile:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

export GENCONTROLOPTS = "--udd"

export GENCONTROL_OPTS = "--udd"

        echo ${GENCONTROLOPTS}
        if [ "$$GENCONTROLOPTS" != "" ] ; then \
        echo "Now test the underscore variable"
        echo ${GENCONTROL_OPTS}
        if [ "$$GENCONTROL_OPTS" != "" ] ; then \
; \

The result is

$ make testopts
echo "--udd"
if [ "$GENCONTROLOPTS" != "" ] ; then \
    echo "GENCONTROLOPTS = "--udd" ( "--udd" )" ; \
GENCONTROLOPTS = --udd ( --udd )
echo "Now test the underscore variable"
Now test the underscore variable

if [ "$GENCONTROL_OPTS" != "" ] ; then \
    echo "GENCONTROL_OPTS =  (  )" ; \

I know that we are using several variables in Makefiles containing
underscores and thus I have no clue what's happening here.  So it seems
the variable GENCONTROL_OPTS simply made it into the environment.  BTW
I also have done

    export GENCONTROL_OPTS="--udd"

in my bash environment which also did not helped. :-(

> > I also need to admit that the issue with libodil0-dev remains:
> > It is in Suggests when using --udd and in Recommends without
> > UDD.
> Harr, they trapped me in the backslash hell. But now I could escape
> using even more backslashes. Can you re-check?

Checked and confirm that it works now.
> > BTW, I invented the debug[1] task to have short tasks featuring only the
> > critical parts in the tasks.  I'd recommend to add libodil0-dev there
> > and may be you add some logging feature with more verbose debug output.
> Would probably be good. The problem is however the UDD content is a
> moving target, and so that one provides may change over time.

Well, also apt cache is a moving target.  So if we do not talk about
reproducible test conditions and just want to debug the libodil0-dev
issue in a defined time frame, the debug task can be helpful.

In summary: I'm fine with a 0.7.0 release to unstable if there is a
documented way to turn on the UDD option.  (I'm obviously to stupid and
always need to trigger it manually. :-((((( )

Thanks again for your work on it



Reply via email to