Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:59:40AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> The policy wording was hardcoded like that basically because Manoj is overly
> attached to make, we had long and unfruitful discussions about it (I forget
> the bug number, search the archives), and no actual practical reason to
> change this has ever been demonstrated.
>
> Well, there's one - I can't upload a new version because Joerg decided some
> time ago to be similarly anal, too.
>
> It's all a big, silly exercise in stubbornness. It must be a makefile!
> It doesn't matter if there's no practical purpose to it, it still must be!
> It *must*!
I understand the inertial argument here; it feels bad to have to change
without a clear reason being given to you.
On the other hand, at this point there is also inertia attached to the
fact that every single other package in Debian (according to
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/debian-rules-not-a-makefile.html) has
debian/rules as a Makefile. Would you mind explaining here why you feel
it is important to retain the flexibility of multiple implementation
languages for debian/rules?
I can provide a concrete practical reason for requiring make as the
implementation language: at least one, probably two, of the options for
build-arch handling
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629385#93) require
debian/rules to be a Makefile. The leave package might be able to get
away with a little bit more if its exit code matched that of make for
nonexisting targets, mentioned in policy 4.9; however, it exits 1 rather
than 2 in this case. I realise that this may be because you are unable
to upload new versions with the shell implementation.
Even if we end up not doing target autodetection for build-arch, it
seems clear that having the option of doing so is useful, and that there
is a cost to the project associated with every discussion on the subject
having to consider the single exception where tools like 'make -qn'
won't work. I think we should only allow that exception if there is a
corresponding benefit to doing so, beyond inertia.
Regards,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
Reply to: