Re: [Summary]: RFC: Standardizing source package artifacts build paths
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.general Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote:
[...]
> 3) We followed up with an [update to the proposal] were debhelper would
> optionally expose some of the relevant directories (some by default,
> others on request) with symlinks while still supporting the new
> layout. It did not attempt to change the debian/.build directory.
> 4) There is not been any visible feedback on our updated proposal from
> people, who raised concerns about the path, on whether this
> alleviated their concern. Nor any visible feedback on the choice of
> paths being exposed by default.
[...]
FWIW I did not followup there because symlimking a hidden directory
just complicates things without addressing arguments against using a
hidden directory at all. I have not received a real answer to
20200331172540.GA1563@argenau.bebt.de. - But please bear with me ...
I do think it is a splendid idea to separate generated stuff from
everything else, I think there is no real good reason for using a
hidden toplevel directory. There is not a *strong* reason for not
doing so either. This subquestion is mainly a bikeshed-type question,
a matter of personal preference, so there is no consensus to be found.
Please if you use a hidden toplevel dir just do it, do not complicate
thing by symlinking outside the directory, which would sabotage the
original aim of clearly separating generated stuff without increasing
consensus. TIA.
cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
Reply to: