This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said: > [ Bcced to -devel and -dpkg, discussion should happen on -policy ] > > Hello, > > we have an unfortunate situation where the practice in dpkg-buildpackage > and the policy do not match fully. > > I tried to summarize the problem here: > http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/DebianRules > > I want to resolve this problem. I see two solutions: > > * either we modify policy to mandate the set of environment variables that > dpkg-buildpackage sets > > * or we roll-back changes to dpkg-buildpackage and design something else > that provide the same feature in terms of distribution-wide control of > default build options. (I ignore the DEB_VENDOR feature, it can be easily > replaced with dpkg-vendor but the build options case is much more tricky > to get right) > > > In terms of efforts, the first solution is the easiest. But we aim at the > _right_ solution so feel free to design something that makes the second > solution viable. I'm more than slightly uncomfortable with mandating a particular tool as the only way to build packages (and mandating something that's different than current policy at that). I'd be much happier with a Makefile snippet and a conversion period. I know it's more work and slower to migrate to, but it seems to me to have the advantage of being the most flexible. Cheers, -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature