Bug#971397: dpkg-dev: dpkg-buildpackage -P option behavior change in update
Control: tags -1 unreproducible moreinfo On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 13:10:21 -0700, Elliott Mitchell wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.19.7 > Severity: important > Between versions 1.19.6 and 1.19.7 the behavior of the -P option for > dpkg-buildpackage changed. At 1.19.6 if there was no string directly on > the -P option, the following argument would be interpreted as the > profiles to set. At 1.19.7 the string MUST be part of the same argument. > > ie at 1.19.6, `dpkg-buildpackage -a arm64 -P cross` worked, while > 1.19.7 *requires* `dpkg-buildpackage -a arm64 -Pcross` (the latter may > have worked with 1.19.6, but the former worked with 1.19.6) There's been no changes to dpkg-buildpackage nor any other used modules in that version. In addition dpkg-buildpackage has never supported specifying the build-profiles as non-bundled arguments, since the option got introduced, so I'm rather puzzled by this report. Thanks, Guillem
Bug#971397: dpkg-dev: dpkg-buildpackage -P option behavior change in update
Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.19.7 Severity: important Between versions 1.19.6 and 1.19.7 the behavior of the -P option for dpkg-buildpackage changed. At 1.19.6 if there was no string directly on the -P option, the following argument would be interpreted as the profiles to set. At 1.19.7 the string MUST be part of the same argument. ie at 1.19.6, `dpkg-buildpackage -a arm64 -P cross` worked, while 1.19.7 *requires* `dpkg-buildpackage -a arm64 -Pcross` (the latter may have worked with 1.19.6, but the former worked with 1.19.6) I see good arguments both for and against allowing or not the profile list being a separate argument. Overtly user-visible behavior though should NOT change with patch-level changes (should be minor-version). -- (\___(\___(\__ --=> 8-) EHM <=-- __/)___/)___/) \BS (| ehem+sig...@m5p.com PGP 87145445 |) / \_CS\ | _ -O #include O- _ | / _/ 8A19\___\_|_/58D2 7E3D DDF4 7BA6 <-PGP-> 41D1 B375 37D0 8714\_|_/___/5445
