Bug#278536: debian-policy: Please add INSTALL_PLUGIN for DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS support snippets

[Gerfried Fuchs <alfie@debian.org>]

reopen 278536
thanks

* Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> [2004-10-27 12:00]:
> 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.

 Then it should be more clearly described as such...

>  You have not demonstrated why this merits being mandated in policy
>  rather than being something fit for the developers reference;

 Because there _is_ in fact already a snipped about this topic there
already.  I don't think that it is sensible for people finding this in
policy to look it up in the developer's reference for if the snipped it
expanded in there.

>  "wouldn't it be nice" things are generally a poor fit for policy.

 Well, what's the rationale for the current snipped in there, then?

>>  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).

 Hand me the form and I'll fill it out to fit your style guide more
appropriately... Closing it on this ground is simply ignorance.

>  This seems to be more like a discussion starter that should happen on
>  debian-devel _first_, rather than a policy proposal.

 So you disagree that it is sensible? Why?

> 	Since this is neither a bug, nor a proposal, I am closing this
>  report. 

 If you care so much about it: I'd suggest another point of addressing
it: Replacing the snippet as a whole with a reference and moving it to
the developer's reference.

 I still don't see what's the reason for having halfgrown snippets in
there without any hint that they are just that, and seemingly unwilling
to enhance that situation.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
#include <signature.h>