On Sun, Aug 14, 2022 at 03:55:05PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote: > * gregor herrmann <[email protected]> [220814 13:53]: > > On Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:48:36 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > This kind of packaging, with some packaging files under debian/ having an
> > > associated binary package name and some not, is an antipattern.
> > +1
> [..]
> > > I would like to suggest that in the next debhelper compat level, debhelper
> > > should consider it an error when debian/control lists more than one binary
> > > package, but contains unnamed packaging files under debian/.
> When I read this initially, I thought this would be a very good
> idea. Then I came across the usage of `bug-script` in
> src:multipath-tools. It wants to install the reportbug helper into
> all debs - quite reasonable I would say.
> Not sure if the proposed rule can be generalised enough...
I think what you describe is quite reasonable, but I fail to see what it has
to do with this bug report. multipath-tools has the following code in
debian/rules:
for pkg in "multipath-tools" "multipath-tools-boot"; do \
install -D -m 755 debian/reportbug/script
debian/$${pkg}/usr/share/bug/$${pkg}/script; \
done
That code is unaffected by the changes suggested in this bug. And a bare
'debian/install' file would not help at all in achieving this. Files listed
in debian/install would NOT be installed in all packages; in fact,
debian/install would be ignored in favor of the already-present
debian/multipath-tools.install.
--
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 https://www.debian.org/
[email protected] [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
