Hi Aurelien, On Tue, Sep 08, 2015 at 07:58:13PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > Thanks for the patch and the detailed explanation. The changes make sense, > so I have applied the patch.
Thank you. > That said looking as this part of the code as a whole, it ends up being a > bit complicated. Basically we define defaults value before the case, but > then we basically handle all cases. Then we use a for loop as a if, as > $templates contains either zero or one value. I concur with that observation. > The complexity comes from the fact this piece of code has been forked from > the non-staged one. I therefore wonder if we should try to either: > 1) Simplify it. > 2) make it as common as possible with the non-stage code. I believe it's > not a problem if we generate debhelper files that we don't use in > practice, as long as the stage ones are correct. Maybe we should try 3) merge it into the non-stage code? Having these two cases separate has the disadvantage that they will go out of sync as the non-staged variant is adapted to the current needs. We should strive for minimal differences in stage1 to minimize its maintenance cost. So what actually is the difference between these two implementations of the debhelper-common target? If I am not mistaken it is: * Generate fewer debhelper templates. As you observed there is no harm in just generating them anyway. * Interpolate more variables, in particular RTLD_SO. They are not used in the libc-dev templates. The computation of the shell variable rtld_so would probably result in garbage as debian/tmp-*/usr/bin/iconv will be missing, but maybe it still succeeds (from an exit code pov). * Remove lines containing LIBDIR in stage1. Unless I am missing something, this is the only relevant difference. So maybe one could have something along the lines. ifeq ($(filter stage1,$(DEB_BUILD_PROFILES)),) STAGE1_TEMPLATE_FILTER= else STAGE1_TEMPLATE_FILTER=sed -e "/LIBDIR.*\.a /d" $$t fi and then add "$(STAGE1_TEMPLATE_FILTER);" to the pile of sed invocations in the non-stage1 code path while eliminating the stage1 block altogether. Do you think this idea would be worth trying and preparing a proper patch? Do you have a better name for that strange make variable? Helmut
