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

Re: debian/rules "make -f" restriction



On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Tobi wrote:

> Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
>
>>  1. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel make -f debian/rules build
>>  2. make -f debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel  build
>>  3. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel ./debian/rules build
>>  4. ./debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
>>  Giving you differing results is confusing enough to anyone
>>  building the packages manually (You know, as free software folks, the
>>  buildds are not the sole focus of our packaging) that I think it is
>>  good that the policy is specific enough to block these.
>
> I just don't think this is a problem at all. If you use
> SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel, you do this for a reason. It's very specific
> for this  set of packages and without reading the documentation, you
> wouldn't even consider setting SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel. And if you
> read the documentation, you know exactly, how to use
> SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX.

        Oh, I am doing this for the reasons specified. But I have been
 assured by policy that it is a makefile, so I think any of the 4
 commands will give me the super-duper devel version, right?

        Wrong!

        And that is why this is a horrendous idea.

> In general: IMHO the policy shouldn't force implementation details, it
> should just enforce the interface.

        The interface definition behind this is:
 calling make -f debian/rules and ./debian/rules should result in
 identical behaviour,  all other things being equal.  Either invocation
 should deal identically with the environment, and with variables set on
 the command line.

        There.

        manoj
-- 
Revolution, n.: A form of government abroad.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


Reply to: