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

Re: dpkg-buildpackage bug?

On 26 Nov 1997, James Troup wrote:

> "Colin R. Telmer" <telmerco@qed.econ.queensu.ca> writes:
> > Given it generated the correct updated file when it was not present
> > to begin with, why can't it just do this each build?
> Because there are uses in certain situations for keeping a fixed
> debian/substvars around.  Is it so much trouble to add
> debian/substvars to the lists of removed files in debian/rules clean?
If you remove it with the clean target then there isn't one "around"
anymore. I had a similar problem with the "files" file when a package
changes its name. The confusion for Colin and myself with these issues is,
"Why are these files allowed to "break" the packagebuild process?" That
is, if they are dangerous to the build process then why do they get
"permanent" existance in a file in the first place? If there is good
reason to create the permanent file, then why can't dpkg-buildpackage be
intelligent enough to know that they should be recreated from the "more
valid" information provided with the build, instead of being used as a
guideline for failure?

It seems that dpkg-buildpackage has the desire to believe the content of
these files, rather than the wishes expressed by the package build itself.

If I should have a 'rm debian/files debian/substvars ...' to "guard"
against these issues, I have to ask, "Why are they there to need deleting
in the first place?"


_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: