Hi, On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, peter green wrote: > Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >So yes, *.a, *.la, *.o and *.so are ignored by default in native source > >package > >and this is is so for as long as I can remember. > Afaict if I leave a .so or similar file in the source tree (and > don't override anything) the different source formats currently > behave as follows > > 1.0 native: include the file in the tarball
Because ignore rules are not used for 1.0. > 1.0 non-native: scream and die Because the binary files are not representable in diff format and the ignore rules are not used (and besides the diff ignore rules do not cover those files). > 3.0 (native): quietly ignore the file yes > 3.0 (quilt): scream and die It depends on where the file is. In debian/, it's ignored just like in 3.0 (native) because the tar_ignore rules apply, outside of debian however, it's the usual diff_ignore rules so they are not ignored but we get a failure due to the unexpected binary file (which also can't be represented in a quilt patch). > But for *.a, *.la, *.o and *.so . If they are present in the source > tree then most likely one of two things is true. > > 1: The files are built as part of the package build process. In this > case they should be removed by the clean target to ensure that > freshly built versions are used in the package build. > 2: The files are not built as part of the package build process and > therefore need to be included in the source package (which of course > makes the package unsuitable for Debian main). > > In both of these cases quietly ignoring the files is broken > behaviour. So I don't see any justification for quietly ignoring > them being the default. Screaming and dieing would be a more sane > behaviour and would be more consistent with the behaviour of > non-native package builds. That rather makes sense and some people have been bitten by the exclusion of .so files when they wanted to install some ld linker scripts. I would be willing to drop those tar_ignore rules but this is a backwards incompatible change and I'm wary of breaking stuff. We should probably seek further input from debian-devel. Guillem, what's your opinion ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
