Charles Plessy <[email protected]> writes: > there is currently a discussion on [email protected] with a > strong disagreement on what the Policy specifies for building binary > packages, and what it should specify.
> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email protected] > (I can prepare a summary if there is interest for this). > In a first step, I think that it would be very helpful to clarify what > is the build interface as of Policy 3.8.3. Currently the Policy > specifies what the debian/rules file is, gives a special role to > dpkg-buildpackage, and the build interface is extrapolated with > conflicting interpretation among the developers. > In a second step, I propose to go forward and open the possibility of an > evolution of the constraints on the format of the debian/rules file, > according to the consensus on what the build interface should be (which > can be different from what it is as of version 3.8.3). This part is not > independant from the discussion whether debian/rules should be callable > interactively with no special environment variable set, or if > dpkg-buildpackage should be the canonical tool for this usage. This was one of two alternate proposals that came out of that discussion concerning what interface is required for debian/rules. The other proposal (require debian/rules to be a makefile) was adopted in Policy 3.8.4. I think that was an implicit choice of that approach over this one, and reviewing the bug log, I don't think this proposal got consensus. Accordingly, I'm marking this bug as rejected, but it will stay open for some time in case anyone objects or disagrees with my interpretation. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
