Hi, >> I have found some more instances, and I have added some workarounds removing >> these problematic fields from the Makefile [2] to let them use the default >> if required — however, I am wondering whether these Makefiles should be >> installed at all. Cleaning them up would add quite a bit of overhead to the >> d/rules in each case and I am quite doubtful users would ever touch these >> Makefiles (if they even work at all). >> Any opinions or ideas? > > Cleaning up the Makefile is fine after checking if it might have any > use.
To me it looked more like the automake-generated ones would be used mainly in the build time tests (the directories in there sometimes don’t make sense outside the build source tree). I’ll keep an eye open if there are other examples. > If it might make sense (for instance when running checks on > libraries as I'm doing in cimg-dev package) to use the Makefile we > should check for such pathes and normalise to some default. I propose that in this case we just replace the build directory after dh_install by ‘.’ - that’s what we do in other build directory-related reproducibility issues. Cheers Sascha
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
