On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:04:30PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> * either we modify policy to mandate the set of environment variables that
> dpkg-buildpackage sets
<snip>
> In terms of efforts, the first solution is the easiest. But we aim
> at the _right_ solution so feel free to design something that makes
> the second solution viable.
FWIW I'd love to see the first solution implemented. My main reason,
as a maintainer of packages which mostly escape the autotools / C
language pattern, is to see written somewhere the intended semantics
in Debian of the various environment variable. That would offer an
explanation to maintainers about how to handle such variables even if
their upstreams are not using "standard" makefiles.
Regarding the objection of mandating dpkg-buildpackage as *the* tool
to build, it looks moot to me. The main point would be defining the
API and the intended meaning of variables. Then if it will happen that
dpkg-buildpackage sets them properly, let's be happy about that or
implement alternative tools.
Same goes for the configuration file objection: dpkg-buildpackage can
have one.
... and pretty please, do not choose a solution that will require
adding an "-include" to 15'000 thousands debian/rules; we will finish
doing that by Lenny+50, the earliest.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature