Re: Bug#278536: debian-policy: Please add INSTALL_PLUGIN for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS support snippets
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:07:34 +0200, Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr> said:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:00:29PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi, On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:13:05 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs
>> <alfie@debian.org> said:
>>
>> > It would be nice to have added to the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS support
>> > snippet
>> > an INSTALL_PLUGIN alias.
>>
>> This is not a bug in policy, policy is not supposed to be
>> exhaustive. You have not demonstrated why this merits being
>> mandated in policy rather than being something fit for the
>> developers reference; "wouldn't it be nice" things are generally a
>> poor fit for policy.
>>
>> > Rationale: If we strip only through INSTALL_PROGRAM people tend
>> > to
>> > install plugins for various programs with executable permissions
>> > set. A seperate INSTALL_PLUGIN alias would only differ in the
>> > INSTALL_PROGRAM in its permission changed from 755 to 644. This
>> > additionally to doing it right[tm] helps people understand that
>> > plugins for e.g. xmms, gkrellm or whatever doesn't need to be
>> > have execute permisson, but still get stripped/not stripped
>> > through DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS handling.
>>
>> This is not even a proposal, there have been no test
>> implementations described, there is no suggested wording (even if
>> this merited going into policy, which it does not). This seems to
>> be more like a discussion starter that should happen on
>> debian-devel _first_, rather than a policy proposal.
>>
>> Since this is neither a bug, nor a proposal, I am closing this
>> report.
> You may have missed the fact that Gerfried proposal pertains to an
> example code included in the Policy document. Since Debian Policy
> and the Debian policy document share the same bug page, this report
> was not completly out of place.
It was an example demonstrating the use of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS,
which it did. It was not a tutorial for HOW to create a rules file.
If you can't figure out if your rules file is giving something the
wrong permission, you should either consider not packaging anything,
or go use a helper package that does the thinking for you.
I am not going to start adding INSTALL-{JAVA-JAR,PERL-SCRIPT,RUBY-SCRIPT,PYTHON-SCRIPT,RUBY_SCRIPT,APACHE_MODULE}
on the off chance that someone out there may not know how to install
apache modules and would use the wrong macro to do so.
Policy, unfortunately, still requires people to think. Perhaps
a helper package can remove that barrier to entry.
> Having detailed and up-to-date examples in the policy document is
> certainly worthwhile since new maintainers might use them as
> templates.
No. Policy is not a tutorial. If you feel thereis a neeed for
tutorial and examples of rules files, I suggest you write one. Have a
look at http://arch.debian.org/arch/private/srivasta/ for examples of
lots of rules files, if you think you need to.
manoj
--
I've got a bad feeling about this.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: