Bug#319616: marked as done (add -DDEBIAN flag)
Your message dated Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200
with message-id <17122.30854.371451.567132@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
and subject line Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Jul 2005 14:33:13 +0000
>From rmh@aybabtu.com Sat Jul 23 07:33:13 2005
Return-path: <rmh@aybabtu.com>
Received: from 216.red-62-57-140.user.auna.net (aragorn) [62.57.140.216]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1DwL3w-0000tS-00; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:33:12 -0700
Received: from rmh by aragorn with local (Exim 4.52)
id 1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:35 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0359210800=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: add -DDEBIAN flag
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 16:33:34 +0200
Message-Id: <[🔎] E1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti@aragorn>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
This is a multi-part MIME message sent by reportbug.
--===============0359210800==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Package: gcc-4.0
Version: 4.0.1-2
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Hi!
It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common
trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros
(the most common one being DEBIAN).
What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc?
I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it
to identify our distribution.
Please consider the attached patch.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-1-k7
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C)
Versions of packages gcc-4.0 depends on:
ii binutils 2.16.1-2 The GNU assembler, linker and bina
ii cpp-4.0 4.0.1-2 The GNU C preprocessor
ii gcc-4.0-base 4.0.1-2 The GNU Compiler Collection (base
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libgcc1 1:4.0.1-2 GCC support library
Versions of packages gcc-4.0 recommends:
ii libc6-dev 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Development Librari
pn libmudflap0-dev <none> (no description available)
-- no debconf information
--===============0359210800==
Content-Type: application/x-shellscript
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="define_debian.dpatch"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--===============0359210800==--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 319616-done) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Jul 2005 17:04:17 +0000
>From doko@cs.tu-berlin.de Sat Jul 23 10:04:17 2005
Return-path: <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
id 1DwNQ9-0003ly-00; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 10:04:17 -0700
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (postfix@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10006;
Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:08 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5236FF2B2;
Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:08 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (bueno [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with ESMTP
id 28411-08; Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST) 11340
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.19.1])
by mailhost.cs.tu-berlin.de (Postfix) with ESMTP;
Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.8/Submit) id j6NH469c026967;
Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200 (MEST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <17122.30854.371451.567132@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:04:06 +0200
To: Robert Millan <rmh@aybabtu.com>, 319616-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#319616: add -DDEBIAN flag
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] E1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti@aragorn>
References: <[🔎] E1DwL4I-0003fK-Ti@aragorn>
X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 17) "Jumbo Shrimp" XEmacs Lucid
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at cs.tu-berlin.de
Delivered-To: 319616-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Robert Millan writes:
> Package: gcc-4.0
> Version: 4.0.1-2
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi!
>
> It seems defining the DEBIAN macro in source packages has become a common
> trend. I could find around 60 packages that define this or equivalent macros
> (the most common one being DEBIAN).
>
> What would you think of standarising it a bit by defining this macro in gcc?
> I can think of a few advantages, including that upstream developers can use it
> to identify our distribution.
>
> Please consider the attached patch.
- No, upstream developers should not rely on distribution specific
patches. Why doesn't autconf work for things like this?
- 60 packages are less than one percent of our archive. It's not
common enough.
- It clutters the namespace. Look, that still i386 is used in may
places instead of __i386__
Reply to: