Bug#250202: Alternate proposal
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 04:07:01PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:37:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:26:41PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:32:17AM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > > + In addition, maintainers should create a target
> > > > + <tt>source</tt> to the <prgn>debian/rules</prgn> file. This
> > > > + target, if present, should unpack source archives, apply
> > > > + patches, generate files, and generally prepare the unpacked
> > > > + source package to modification. Running <prgn>debian/rules
> > > > + binary</prgn> after <prgn>debian/rules source</prgn>
> > > > + <em>must not</em> erase any changes, and it must also not
> > > > + fail.
> > >
> > > What has happened to the concerns that were mentioned at the beginning
> > > of the discussion to not make many packages instantly buggy?
> >
> > Both cases where I used 'must' do not make packages instantly buggy,
> > since they only apply to the 'source' target (that is the idea, at
> > least; if the wording isn't clear enough, I may need to fix that). If
> > you don't have that target, you don't have to comply with the must. The
> > 'source' target is a 'should', so a package that does not currently have
> > this target isn't buggy at all.
>
> Yeah, but I know quite a few older packages that contain a snippet like:
> source diff:
> @echo >&2 'source and diff are obsolete - use dpkg-source -b'; false
>
> Don't know why, this must be way before my time in Debian...
> It would be good to check for the amount of packages affected by that
> nevertheless.
A bit over 1100 source packages, nearly 15% of the archive or something
like that. (curiously, the big majority of them have 65 spaces after the
colon). Guess there was a lot of copy&pasting going on.
Anyway, > 1100 source packages is way too much to suddenly change.
'unpack-source' or something would be a bit more verbose and more
unlikely to clash.
> > > (Apart from that fact I agree with the proposal, just for the record)
> >
> > Is that a formal second?
>
> Not (yet).
I still second the idea, but think a better actual name for the target
is due.
--Jeroen
--
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Reply to: