Re: Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload [and 1 more messages]
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload"):
> Maybe someone on the list can help with a sharp insight before I go trying.
>
> The r-base source package (for the R system and language) has a somewhat
> cobbled together debian/rules [1], mostly of my making over the last 20+
> years since I helped Doug more and more and eventually took it over. I
> apologize for the rough shape it is in, but hey, it works. Mostly. Read on.
....
> So presumably the dependency graph within debian/rules is wrong. Would
> anybody here know
> - either a failsafe idiom forcing the right thing to happen
> - or a more efficient way
> to ensure the binary-arch is built before binary-all? Should I force it? Is
> that wasteful? Is there a recommended way?
You could take the first part of the binary-arch target and split it
out into something that both binary-arch and binary-indep depend on.
That would probably "fix" this problem.
Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload"):
> not really that helpful of a comment, but I think the rules file would
> be a lot more readable if you'd dropped all the old commented out code
> in it.
I agree with this.
> (and then I think^wbelieve your arch-all problem could be solved by
> switching to dh style...)
This would be a good idea. It is quite some effort but I think you
would be rewarded with significantly lower maintenance burden.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: