Hello, Panu Kalliokoski schrieb:
Some issues seem to come up time and again when somebody inspects RFS'd packages. Some of these are not breaches of policy but simply bad practices, like leaving quoted dh_* commands in debian/rules.
I do that all the time. It is much easier to see that a program is not being run if it is explicitly commented out rather than just "not there", as Makefiles tend to be executed in interesting nonlinear ways, and it doesn't really hurt either. Even the slowest of our buildds can skip over these lines in less than a second, while if I screw up with these lines I'm wasting a lot more autobuilder time, archive bandwidth etc.
Simon I'm half-joking here (I also throw out the commented-out dh_* lines when I get around to it). The point I'm trying to make is that there is such a thing as personal style, and sometimes a solution that appears suboptimal to you might be easier to work with for the actual maintainer, so I wouldn't attempt to micromanage here. It is an entirely different thing for corner cases that may lead to packages misbehaving; for example I consider the "-$(MAKE) distclean" line in the clean target of a lot of packages a bug because it will not clean up if the toplevel Makefile goes missing.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature