Re: Environment variables, debian/rules and dpkg-buildpackage
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:37:46PM +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)
> I don't agree that "dpkg-buildpackage sets additional environment variables
> to implement a distro/site policy for builds" implies "calling debian/rules
> directly is unsupported". Or maybe I've misunderstood, and there are Debian
> developers who are building official packages for *upload* by calling
> debian/rules by hand, and that's what people are concerned about preserving
> while still getting the benefits of these distro build flags?
> I hadn't considered that possibility, because I can't imagine anyone wanting
> to build packages that way instead of using dpkg-buildpackage, which does it
> all in a single command. So I really don't consider that an important use
> case, weighed against the concerns I outlined.
And yet people do.
Also don't forget that many people call debuild, get an error, edit
some file, run debian/rules foo to see if it got fixed. Now suddenly
that quick check if it got fixed behaves differently.
>> 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.
> Er, both debuild and pbuilder invoke dpkg-buildpackage. So it seems clear
> to me that the only difference would be when calling debian/rules directly,
> and at that point you're opting out of lots of other conveniences, not just
> distro build policy.