Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 09 Sep 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Currently the environment will only be setup if dpkg-buildpackage is >> called but not if debian/rules is invoked directly. The goal of the >> makefile fragment is to consistently set up the environment with some >> default variables no matter how debian/rules is called. For this all >> sources will have to include that fragment in debian/rules bevor they >> can rely on the environment being setup automatically. > > I don't think that this goal is worthwile in itself. We have defined > dpkg-buildpackage to be the interface to build package and instead of > changing once more the location of the logic we should rather modify > dpkg-buildpackage to simplify calls to single targets (as already > requested in #477916) and support properly all use cases. > > Requesting changes in all packages is unnecessary work IMO. People can > change their habits if necessary.
That change has already sort of been requested by dpkg-buildpackage suddenly setting variables without changing policy to make dpkg-buildpackage use required. Will you make the request to change policy? One problem I see with this is that is hard to detect when people don't change their habit. If dpkg-buildpackage becomes the interface to build packages then all other tools (dpkg-genchanges, ...) could refuse to work by default if for example CALLED_BY_DPKG_BUILDPACKAGE is not set. Or at least result in a, for DAK and users, noticable difference. Including DEB_VENDOR and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS in the DEBIAN/control and changes files would be a good thing imho. It should highlight most misuses of debian/rules. The DAK could then refuse uploads where the vendor is not Debian. > Cheers, > -- > Raphaël Hertzog > > Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : > http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
