Re: Proposalto introduce compiler options passed from dpkg-buildpackage

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   a) Adds no practical value

 It's about rejecting a change to policy; I don't see why it should add
 practical value.

>   b) does not represent current practice
>   c) not implementing the proposal is not a technical hindrance to any
>      package

 This is the same point.  Just for the record, there's a small set of
 packages not based on a Makefile for debian/rules.

>   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 two above points are the same argument.  The only proposal I know
 it stands on the way of is the one to list implemented targets with a
 special make invocation which seemed flaky anyway.

>         The only reason for the bug report seems to be
>  a) because we can
>  b) aesthetics
>  c) profit???

 Not constraining the interface if we don't need to?  There's a huge
 difference in possibilities between "any script" and "a Makefile".

 Yes, we can do it in other ways, such as defining which flags or env
 vars have to be honored, or which files have to be read.

-- 
Loïc Minier