Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from dpkg-buildpackage
user srivasta@debian.org
usertag 432564 +dubious
thanks
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 08:15:08 +0000 (UTC), Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> said:
> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta <at> debian.org> writes:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:11:53 +0100, Matthias Klose <doko
>> <at> cs.tu-berlin.de>
> said:
>>
>> > IIRC we cannot assume that debian/rules is a makefile and pass them
>> > as macros directly, so we have to pass them as environment
>> > variables.
>>
>> I think you remember incorrectly. Policy currently states
> [...]
>> This file must be an executable makefile,
> Indeed - but there's a bug, #432564, requesting to change it.
That is the same as the older bug#88111, filed 1 Mar 2001. As
far as I can tell, both these bug are about a proposal that
a) Adds no practical value
b) does not represent current practice
c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
package
d) stands in the way of technical proposals like passing information
to the build system on the command line
e) prevents people from relying on make semantics for builds.
The only reason for the bug report seems to be
a) because we can
b) aesthetics
c) profit???
I am convinced that this bug report is of dubious value, and if
Russ agrees, I am going to just mark this report as closed, or as
wontfix.
manoj
--
Is that really YOU that is reading this?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: