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