On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:50:33AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:43:44AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > > 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. > > Although actually, Steve pointed out in message #119 that make will exit > 2 when presented with a shell script, so option 1 would work for the > leave package. Nevertheless, merely having that doubt in developers' > minds is a cost; 17058 packages can definitely use this technique, while > for 1 package we have to think about it ... so I would still want to > hear of a clear benefit to allowing this flexibility. It should also be noted that tools like "dh" run "make -Rrnpsf debian/rules" to determine which targets/rules are present. i.e. they assume and require that debian/rules is a Makefile. Regards, Roger -- .''`. Roger Leigh : :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/ `. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/ `- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature