On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that
On Thu, Sep 18 2008, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Setting the environment on a distribution wide level is ugly and
fragile. Too many users will reset the environment in their .bashrc.
Instead the idea was to have a vendor (set in
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call debian/rules
directly.
This has been fixed already. It calls dpkg-buildpackage
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Plus a note in policy clarifying that debian/rules is only an
interface for dpkg-buildpackage but not users.
Right. If you want to make this a rule, then we should discuss it, reach
a consensus, document and publicize the change, and so forth.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change would rather lead
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 03:03:20PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call debian/rules
directly.
This has been fixed already. It calls dpkg-buildpackage
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Plus a note in policy clarifying that debian/rules is only an
interface for dpkg-buildpackage but not users.
Right. If you want to make this a rule, then we should discuss it, reach
a consensus, document and publicize the change, and so forth.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 05:36:46PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I have to say i verry rarely do not use debuild. And 99% of the
exceptions are calling debian/rules clean.
Precisely, debuild does not use dpkg-buildpackage, but call
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
People have noticed that and already requested that we can call arbitrary
targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done precisely
for test purpose during packaging work (see #477916).
I must say, I really do not like this
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
People have noticed that and already requested that we can call
arbitrary
targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done
precisely
for test purpose during
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
People have noticed that and already requested that we can call arbitrary
targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done precisely
for test purpose during packaging work (see #477916).
I must say, I really do not like this
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 08:46 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
People have noticed that and already requested that we can call
arbitrary
targets of debian/rules with all the proper initialization done
precisely
for test purpose during
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change would rather lead me to hardcode values of
On Thu, 2008-09-11 at 10:53 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008, Bill Allombert wrote:
I like to say I concurr with Russ. There are some much difference
between packages that distributions wide default does not make sense.
Such change
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
Because they want that anyone can easily rebuild it with that option
disabled?
That is already supported using the existing DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS mechanism.
I may be confused about your mental model here, but it seems like you're
moving rules about
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think we're already on that path for quite some time. If your package
uses DEB_(BUILD|HOST)_* variables, you rely on dpkg-buildpackage setting
them for you (with dpkg-architecture).
I most certainly do not rely on dpkg-buildpackage setting anything.
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
This doesn't make sense to me. The maintainer writes debian/rules; why
would they need to change Build-Options in debian/control to enable
anything about the build?
Because they want that anyone can easily
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 07:19:16PM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
El 10/07/08 18:02 Raphael Hertzog escribió:
Hello,
in order to fix #229357 I decided to add a new Build-Options field.
I modified Dpkg::BuildOptions to parse this field and DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS.
And I added support for a
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even if there's only two things, the fact is that the package maintainer
wants not only to decide what is supported but he might also want to
enable some features... if you check the case that I listed above, we
also want to use Build-Options to
23 matches
Mail list logo
