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

Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from dpkg-buildpackage

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         *Sigh*.
> __> make -pn build-arch | grep '^build-arch'
> build-arch:
>         OK?

 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
 your position.

Loïc Minier

Reply to: