Re: Debian vs. Ubuntu source control file
On 05/01/10 at 16:31 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 03:52:46PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Jan 2010, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > On 05/01/10 at 21:39 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > That's only true with the v3 format. If you stick with v1, you can
> > > > > patch debian/control at unpack time.
> > > >
> > > > > And in both cases, you are free to modify it manually during the build.
> > > >
> > > > Err, what? debian/control modified during build? Sure not.
>
> > > What is preventing it from being modified during the build?
>
> > Nothing besides seriously affecting mine and other's sanity if we ever
> > glance at such packages. DEBIAN/control is an entirely different
> > matter.
>
> No, it also breaks assumptions about debian/control that the buildds, the
> archive, and various supplementary checker tools (e.g., lintian.debian.org)
> rely on.
Modifying the source stanza is debian/control is clearly a bad idea. But
for binary stanzas, debian/control is only a template from which
DEBIAN/control is generated. If tools get information about binary
packages using debian/control, then it's probably a bug (lintian is a
different case, because it analyzes the build process itself, and makes
assumptions about what the maintainer is doing. However, misleading
lintian into thinking something about your package is not a serious
issue).
Anyway, to avoid modifying debian/control directly, it's easy to add an
additional substvar (ubuntu:Browser?):
debian/control:
Depends: [...], iceweasel | ${ubuntu:Browser}
debian/rules:
if dpkg-vendor --is ubuntu; then \
echo "ubuntu:Browser=abrowser" >> debian/feed2imap.substvars ;\
fi
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: