[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: draft ballot: please rule on how to implement debian/rules build-arch

On Fri, 2012-01-27 at 08:22:22 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Guillem Jover wrote:
> > >     This fallback is a temporary measure until all packages have been
> > >     converted to properly support the build-arch and build-indep targets.
> > 
> > Actually thinking about this, making this temporary will imply that
> > once this would get removed old/external packages would stop building
> > which is not acceptable. So I think we might need to carry this for
> > quite some time (if not indefinitely).
> IIRC you said before that a solution involving a flag day was ok for you.
> And now you care about compatibility of old/external packages? :-)
> In any case, I really care about this being temporary because, as we
> saw, the make -qn call can have undesired side effects and I don't want
> to keep this source of problem indefinitely.
> I have no problem to keep it for very long, but I would like to document
> it as temporary (or, what I considered initially, not document the
> existence of this kludge at all).

Yes, I reorganized my thoughts while sleeping, in essence I'm mostly
concerned about the *possibility* of building/using old sources and
binaries, and as long as there's a way, even if behind --force- or
other similar options I don't have any problem with that.

For this case we do have -T so the previous behaviour can always be
somehow emulated manually, it might make sense to move the heuristic to
an option that can be used explicitly once we disable it by default.
On the other hand dpkg-buildpackage is not the official interface to
build packages, debian/rules is, so the builder can always use that.

> +unless ($buildtarget eq "build" or scalar(@debian_rules) > 1) {
> +    # Verify that build-{arch,indep} are supported. If not, fallback to build.
> +    # This is a temporary measure to not break too many packages on a flag day.

It still would be nice to wrap this under 80 chars. :)


Reply to: