On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:07:54PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#229357: Can we require build-arch/indep
> targets for lenny?"):
> > Attached is a patch to dpkg which implements a check for a 'build-arch'
> > target using 'make -f debian/rules -qn build-arch'.
> Why are we so resistant to the new debian/control field ? That
> doesn't require any of this messing about with make.
But it does require the maintainer to keep three bits of information in
sync: the new declarative Build-Options field, the build-arch target, and
the Build-Depends field. That's added complexity which means an added
opportunity for bugs, so if the complexity can be avoided I think it's
worthwhile.
If the dpkg maintainers feel that this autodetection isn't adequate, I do
support implementing build-arch by way of Build-Options. The benefits would
be realized more slowly, but they would be realized, and without the
insanity of making 75% of our packages FTBFS in unstable first.
> Note that the current setup does not actually require debian/rules to
> be a makefile. I don't think we should introduce software which has a
> requirement if we can avoid it.
This doesn't require debian/rules to be a makefile either (though Policy
does), it just requires that debian/rules be a makefile *if* the package
implements build-arch and uses the corresponding semantics for
Build-Depends.
Anyway, for the perverse, the following is a valid makefile and a valid
shell script. ;)
#!/bin/sh
fakeout="
build-arch: "
case "$1" in
build-arch)
echo whee fun.
;;
esac
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
