Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage
Hello,
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 09:53:46AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > So according to your rule that policy should standardize "common practice"
> > and not mandate something completely new, the env variable proposal is in
> > more widespread usage.
>
> For ten years, the "common practice" was that dpkg-buildpackage did not set
> any variable.
It does set the dpkg-architecture related variables since 2001, so that's
not true.
> We cannot standardize on the "env variable proposal" because such proposal has
> never be made. Instead dpkg-buildpackage was broken in Lenny, and should be
> fixed ASAP.
I can understand you were not happy with the way the change was done but
saying dpkg-bp is broken is strong (and wrong). If you really believed that
a major mistake was done at that time, you could have complained louder
and you could have asked for a tech-ctte ruling. We also offered
to retract the change to the release team but they did not deem it
necessary.
> Now we have packages that do not build correctly with
> dpkg-buildpackage, others that do not build correctly with debian/rules binary,
> and all handle env var differently.
Hence why I started this discussion, I'm not happy with the situation
either.
I also know that several maintainers object to adding a Makefile snippet
so if we ever want to have a chance to standardize something in policy, we
need to find a reasonable compromise like the one I tried to
propose in http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/03/msg00920.html
While I prefer the env var approach, I'm not opposed to the Makefile
snippet approach, but I know that others are and I really want that we
find some path out of this situation because the objectives behind all this
are desirable.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Contribuez à Debian et gagnez un cahier de l'admin Debian Lenny :
http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2009/03/02/contribuer-a-debian-gagner-un-livre/
Reply to: