On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 10:18:30AM +0100, Rafael Laboissière wrote: > * Rafael Laboissière <rafael@debian.org> [2018-01-12 23:43]: > > > * Mike Miller <mtmiller@debian.org> [2018-01-12 14:07]: > > > > > What do you think about having a clean function (as you have it now) > > > versus a dh_octave_clean helper? Is it better to have fine grained > > > explicit helper scripts or only when the steps become complex? > > > > I have no strong opinion on this. For now, the action of the clean > > function in Buildsystem/octave.pm are pretty simple, so let us keep it > > like that. > > I have looked deeper in this issue. In the CDBS-based infrastructure, > originally implemented by octave-pkg-dev, we took care of the environment > variable DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_TARGET. Three packages make currently use of this > feature: > > $ grep DEB_MAKE octave-*/*/debian/rules > octave-interval/octave-interval/debian/rules:DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_TARGET = -f debian/rules debian-clean > octave-nan/octave-nan/debian/rules:DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_TARGET = -f debian/rules clean-files > octave-octclip/octave-octclip/debian/rules:DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_TARGET = -C src cleanall > > We msut include support for it in dh-octave. Since this will make the code > in Buildsystem/octave.pm become more complex, I am planning to create a > separate script called dh_octave_clean, as Mike suggested. I don't think we need to explicitly add support for that. The dh-way is to have these package add an override_dh_auto_clean target. Or am I missing something? -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature