On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 01:39 -0700, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:21 AM, Ian Campbell <i...@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 06:28 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 09:49:26 +0200, Michael Stapelberg wrote:
> > > > > > > > Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> writes:
> > > > > Please document at least the variables from the environment that
> > > > > directly affect the behavior such as GOPATH, DH_GOPKG,
> > > > > DH_GOLANG_INSTALL_ALL, DH_GOLANG_INSTALL_EXTRA, DH_GOLANG_BUILDPKG,
> > > > > DH_GOLANG_GO_GENERATE. And the field control field Go-Import-Path.
> > > >
> > > > What’s the correct place to document them? Stuffing this buildsystem
> > > > related documentation into the dh_golang(1) manpage seems inappropriate,
> > > > as that manpage should only document the dh_golang executable, right?
> > >
> > > Yeah, that was my initial reaction as well. And I'm not sure where
> > > the buildsystem and sequence behavior is supposed to be documented, or
> > > whether debhelper maintainers would recommend doing so, so I've CCed
> > > them in case they have any input.
> > >
> > > OTOH, dh_golang(1p) already contains a brief note about the golang
> > > buildsystem, so perhaps that man page is not such a bad idea after
> > > all? Also because that's the entry point for the command, but yeah
> > > as mentioned above I also see why it feels wrong.
> > 
> > Are DH_GOLANG_* not as specific to dh_golang as the name would suggest?
> 
> They’re specific to the debhelper golang buildsystem
> (/usr/share/perl5/Debian/Debhelper/Buildsystem/golang.pm). Should
> they be named differently?

I hadn't realised there was that distinction between the library and
the tool, so I don't know, you should probably ignore me ;-)

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Pkg-go-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-go-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-go-maintainers

Reply via email to