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

Re: possible MBF: automatically detecting unused build dependencies

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:46:47PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Jul  7, 2014 at 11:22:42 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > For the case of pam, I would be interested in seeing the full build log
> > to understand how in the world this built successfully without libdb. 
> > That's definitely a packaging error on my part, because without libdb,
> > pam_userdb.so should not build, which in turn *should* be treated as a
> > build failure.  But I guess I'm not accounting for individual modules in
> > the build output, since in general the greater risk is failing to keep
> > this list in sync with new upstream modules, rather than misbuilding and
> > losing a module from the tree.

> dh_install --fail-missing would help for the case where new modules are
> added and need to be accounted for in the packaging.

Yes, I'm aware of the available techniques here; I am just not convinced
that a 40+ line debian/libpam-modules.install, with architecture-dependent
contents, is preferable to a two-line file with a single glob in terms of
overall maintainability.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: