On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 23:37 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Sunday 10 May 2009 13:56:04 Steve Langasek wrote: > > I thought it was generally recognized that it's a Bad Idea to implement > > config files using your interpreter's 'include' functionality, but that's > > basically what we have here. > > Guillem pointed out one problem: Either you do it via a make include (which > you have issues with), or you stop supporting calling debian/rules directly > (inconvenient, probably prone to break things), or you require every package > to handle it itself (unreliable, stupid) -- or you have the current situation, > which is somewhere in the middle. For example, you possibly get something > different depending on whether you call debian/rules, dpkg-buildpackage, > debuild, or pbuilder. And the difference is hard to explain or analyze. What about having a dh_config - e.g. CFLAGS := dh_config CFLAGS That can look it up via a config file, environment variable etc, and returns the decided answer. Should be consistent for all ways of invoking, and we can put a stock set of calls to this in a makefile fragment. including the code to do config files is different to doing config files by including :). -Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part