On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 03:31:41PM +0100, Tanguy Ortolo wrote: > Le lundi 22 mars 2010, Osamu Aoki a ??crit???: > > If you have "binary" and "build" targets explicitly mentioned in > > debian/rules, it is time to update it :-) > > > > Anyway, many people still use old rule file for debhelper. Please > > consider to update them in more readable one. > > I am considering it very seriously. :-) > But, in what I have seen of the new dh rules, there is no integrated > binary-indep target. The binary-arch integrated target would do the > same, but at the cost of what I see as a lie. > > In fact, I am looking for a documentation that explains what dh $@ does > for each call, and what the dh_auto_* do. The new maintainer guide gives > some information, but, if it is complete, that means that there are > common cases that cannot be managed that way (like interpreted web > applications, that are completely arch-independent). If by "new dh rules" you mean "the use of dh(1) to do everything, only overriding what is necessary", then those do indeed support completely arch-independent packages like e.g. http://packages.debian.org/sid/s5 :) As to documentation, yeah, something like that might be nice, although I've always found the debhelper Perl utilities to be quite easy to read... but then I'm a Perl junkie myself, so maybe this opinion suffers from some bias :) And, yes, in the beginning I did find myself doing "dh binary-arch --no-act --verbose > ~/tmp/binary-arch.log" to see What Would DebHelper Do(tm) - but, with time, one gets to memorize which program goes in which automatically-invoked target. G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13 Do you think anybody has ever had *precisely this thought* before?
Description: PGP signature