On Fri, Aug 06, 1999 at 02:40:06PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> - the rationale for choosing such or such options in the debian/rules when
>>> calling configure and/or make.
>> Why shouldn't this simply be in the debian/rules file where it's convenient,
> Hmmm, because debian/rules is read by people who want to recompile (possibly
> with different options) and README.debian by ordinary system administrators,
> who just want to know? Remember that debian/rules is not in the binary package.
Oh. I just didn't see any reason why a sysadmin would particularly care
unless they were about to recompile it. I guess I just don't see what
relevance compile options have without the code that they're compiling.
At least in the common case.
> > There's an existing proposal to have proper build dependencies, so this
> > is hopefully redundant.
> I don't think we should write the Policy by taking into account
> changes which will be integrated in the next twenty years. Seeing
> the buglist of dpkg, I seriously doubt that source dependencies will
> be implemented soon. While a change in the Policy's "Documentation"
> section is much lighter.
I haven't been following too closely, but it looked like they were about
ready to go, modulo some minor disagreements (with code and all). But
yeah, if they're not, this isn't a bad alternative. (although having
your rules file check for it and die with an informative error message
seems more convenient. *shrug*)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.
``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it
results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
-- Linus Torvalds
Attachment:
pgp2JdRlNeC8R.pgp
Description: PGP signature