Your message dated Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:35:05 -0700 with message-id <87k5tgr2h2.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu> and subject line Bug#428213: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
- To: submit@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation
- From: Peter Samuelson <peter@p12n.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 18:03:41 -0500
- Message-id: <20070609230341.GG8867@p12n.org>
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.7.2.2 Severity: wishlist Tags: patch The suggestions given in Policy 4.9 about a build target being empty and the binary target depending on other build targets seems a bit wrong - why would the build target itself not depend on the other targets? I suggest a patch below, wording is borrowed from a paragraph about the binary target. This is not really a functional change, just explaining best practices. It's also not officially a proposal, as my key isn't in the keyring. Peter --- policy.sgml +++ policy.sgml @@ -1738,17 +1738,10 @@ </p> <p> - For some packages, notably ones where the same - source tree is compiled in different ways to produce - two binary packages, the <tt>build</tt> target - does not make much sense. For these packages it is - good enough to provide two (or more) targets - (<tt>build-a</tt> and <tt>build-b</tt> or whatever) - for each of the ways of building the package, and a - <tt>build</tt> target that does nothing. The - <tt>binary</tt> target will have to build the - package in each of the possible ways and make the - binary package out of each. + <tt>build</tt> may be (and commonly is) a target with + no commands which simply depends on <tt>build-arch</tt> + and <tt>build-indep</tt> (see below), or on other + targets split from <tt>build</tt> for readability. </p> <p>Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: 428213-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#428213: policy 4.9: minor (non-normative) patch for 'debian/rules build' explanation
- From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 01:35:05 -0700
- Message-id: <87k5tgr2h2.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
> The suggestions given in Policy 4.9 about a build target being empty > and the binary target depending on other build targets seems a bit > wrong - why would the build target itself not depend on the other > targets? I suggest a patch below, wording is borrowed from a paragraph > about the binary target. You missed the point of this section, which is about cases where there is no single build of the package. Instead, the package is built twice (or more) with, for example, different configure options. Consider the case of generating gvim and vim from the same package. In some of those cases, an empty build target and a binary target that calls the two build targets and does some package building or file installation between the two builds makes more sense. That's what Policy is trying to describe here. -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---