Bug#218893: Proposal: debian/rules.version file [Fix for the build-arch problem]
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:35:48PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > [1] Currently this is only possible with ugliness like making
> > build-indep an empty target and doing the actual expensive work in
> > binary-indep,
> Some of the packages I maintain use texi2html in the binary-indep
> target (and they have texi2html in Build-Depends-Indep). Why is such
> thing an ugliness? It is because it runs under root/fakeroot or are
> there any other reason?
Personal taste. ;-) iMvho it is obviously ugly, if the makefile has
build-indep and build-arch targets, I exspect that the time-consuming
activities are done in it.
But the real ugliness is that current policy propagates implementing
build-arch and build-indep target although they are useless. I _would_
really like to see either these two targets made useful (using
something like Bill's proposal) or to abolish mentioning/suggesting
them in policy.
> > or ignoring policy's recommendation to make build depend
> > on build-arch and build-indep.
> Which is what I would call complexity for very little gain.
> Packages which do not benefit from a split build-arch / build-indep
> (and there are certainly a lot of packages which do not benefit)
Ack, I am completely with you. (None of mine does.)
> should continue to be allowed not to have such targets, without people
> or policy saying they are following a "deprecated format" or anything
> like that. Does this clarify my point?
Yes. And I agree. I just want the existing build-arch and
build-indep target made useful.
> What about optional fields in the control file with default values:
> Build-Arch: build
> Build-Indep: build
> (and therefore may be omitted), but that can be overridden in this way?:
> Build-Arch: build-arch
> Build-Indep: build-indep
> only for packages which really need or benefit from them?
> (What I dislike is a "format version", mandatory conversion of all
> packages to the new format in the long run, and all that).
That is equivalent to Bill's second proposal.
I get your point and support it.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
Reply to: