Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from dpkg-buildpackage
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> __> make -pn build-arch | grep '^build-arch'
Dude, there's no need to sigh out loudly; "make -pn $target" doesn't
change anything, but you didn't even read the rest of my point: that
packages were *already* using build-% and that this was not a proper
test to see whether a package is implementing build-arch...
It's really saddening to not even be read but to get a condescending
> > > Yes, we can do it in other ways, such as defining which flags or env
> > > vars have to be honored, or which files have to be read.
> > Right. We can re-invent the wheel on our own, in a classic
> > example of NIH, for absolutely no reason -- apart from not liking a
> > solution that is already in place.
> > We already proved the use over many more years of env vars passed to
> > debian/rules, arguments passed on the command-line, or of data in
> > debian/control. Proposing to use the new channels such as makefile
> > inclusion or querying for the implemented rules is looking for trouble
> > and discourages other options.
> What new channel? This channel (./debian/rules as a Makfile)
> has been in practice since around 1996, and in policy as a mUST since
> 2001 (which was, I think, before you became a DD).
(Condescending again.) The new channels are "makefile inclusion" and
"querying for implemented rules". Requiring that my debian/rules be
include-able in any other Makefile or that you can query my
debian/rules for some specific targets sets constraints which have not
been required before, even if it was required that debian/rules be "a
> If you think it is new, you must not really have read policy
> very well.
The "new *channels*".
> > I'm not under the impression that you're still open-minded on the
> > topic, and since you're one of our beloved policy maintainers, and make
> > maintainer, I don't think it's worth our time to repeat the arguments
> > which have already been made.
> Ah. Argumentum ad Hominem. "I can't refute Manoj's arguments, so
> let us paint him as an irrational bigot". I am going to ignore this as
> the logical fallacy that it is.
I didn't say you were irrational; still your response vastly proves my
point: that you're not reading in a mindset where you could reconsider