On 2017-10-18 12:08 +0000, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 11:36:41 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
> > And I've got to question whether we should keep supporting it or just
> > declare dpkg-buildpackage to be that entry point.
>
> I think it makes sense to declare dpkg-buildpackage the official entry
> point.
I too am reasonably happy with this idea, for the reasons you and
Felipe gave, however I can think of one potential issue.
> Reasons against:
I quite often use the debian/rules binary{-arch,-indep} interface when
doing porting/bootstrapping work (i.e the package built but something
goes wrong in the packaging process so I want to retry with a tweak or a bodge)
In theory I should be able to do
dpkg-buildpackage -nc --target=binary
but in practice I find that this often doesn't work as intended and it
tries to do the whole build again. I have not investigated exactly why
this is, and I guess you'll want me to give you a concrete example next.
Doing the whole build again is sometimes just slow (very slow!), but
can also be a PITA when porting, and you really do just want to
package up what you have.
I guess my point is that I do not find these interfaces to be
equivalent in practice so there is value for me in retaining the
debian/rules binary interface at least until the dpkg-buidpackage one
reliably does the same thing. Perhaps I am missing some magic switch.
It seems like this is a bug/interaction, rather than a fundamental
reason for retaining the debian/rules interface in the long term, but
I do see it as a reason to proceed cautiously.
Sadly I am failing to remember whch package did this to me most
recently, even though it wasn't long ago. (Something in the bottom
'debootstrap' 144 :-)
Wookey
--
Principal hats: Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature