[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#553420: marked as done (debian-policy: Please clarify what is the interface for building binary packages.)

Your message dated Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:15:01 -0800
with message-id <874niyufxm.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Re: Bug#553420: debian-policy: Please clarify what is the interface for building binary packages.
has caused the Debian Bug report #553420,
regarding debian-policy: Please clarify what is the interface for building binary packages.
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
553420: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=553420
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.8.3.0
Severity: normal

Dear Policy delegates,

there is currently a discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org with a strong
disagreement on what the Policy specifies for building binary packages, and
what it should specify.

http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/4AE85D08.1050809@e-tobi.net
(I can prepare a summary if there is interest for this).

In a first step, I think that it would be very helpful to clarify what is the
build interface as of Policy 3.8.3. Currently the Policy specifies what the
debian/rules file is, gives a special role to dpkg-buildpackage, and the build
interface is extrapolated with conflicting interpretation among the developers.

In a second step, I propose to go forward and open the possibility of an
evolution of the constraints on the format of the debian/rules file, according
to the consensus on what the build interface should be (which can be different
from what it is as of version 3.8.3). This part is not independant from the
discussion whether debian/rules should be callable interactively with no
special environment variable set, or if dpkg-buildpackage should be the
canonical tool for this usage.

Have a nice week-end,

-- 
Charles Plessy,
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

>> there is currently a discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org with a
>> strong disagreement on what the Policy specifies for building binary
>> packages, and what it should specify.

>> http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/4AE85D08.1050809@e-tobi.net
>> (I can prepare a summary if there is interest for this).

>> In a first step, I think that it would be very helpful to clarify what
>> is the build interface as of Policy 3.8.3. Currently the Policy
>> specifies what the debian/rules file is, gives a special role to
>> dpkg-buildpackage, and the build interface is extrapolated with
>> conflicting interpretation among the developers.

>> In a second step, I propose to go forward and open the possibility of
>> an evolution of the constraints on the format of the debian/rules file,
>> according to the consensus on what the build interface should be (which
>> can be different from what it is as of version 3.8.3). This part is not
>> independant from the discussion whether debian/rules should be callable
>> interactively with no special environment variable set, or if
>> dpkg-buildpackage should be the canonical tool for this usage.

> This was one of two alternate proposals that came out of that discussion
> concerning what interface is required for debian/rules.  The other
> proposal (require debian/rules to be a makefile) was adopted in Policy
> 3.8.4.  I think that was an implicit choice of that approach over this
> one, and reviewing the bug log, I don't think this proposal got
> consensus.

> Accordingly, I'm marking this bug as rejected, but it will stay open for
> some time in case anyone objects or disagrees with my interpretation.

Revisiting this a few years later, I'm sympathetic to the idea that more
formality around our build interface would be nice, but I don't think this
is something anyone is going to work on any time soon, and I don't see
that we have any consensus on how to specify that interface (at least
right now).

Accordingly, I'm closing this bug, but that shouldn't be considered a
permanent rejection of the idea, only a note that this particular proposal
seems to be premature.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: