Hello, On Sat 09 Sep 2023 at 03:16pm -07, Russ Allbery wrote: > I looked at this snippet and I think it has worse problems than the use of > install -s. For example, it predates the existence of dpkg-buildflags, > which would also handle noopt. I'm also dubious that it serves any useful > purpose given that nearly every package should just use debhelper. The > typical current Debian packager seems more likely to be confused by this > fragment than aided by it. > > I'm therefore going to propose fixing this bug with the following patch, > which is more aggressive than you propose. > > I think this is informative rather than normative and therefore > technically doesn't require seconds, but I'll give this some time for > other people to take a look and talk me out of deleting this section if > they wish. > > -- > Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> > >>From 409bbd815a946a7bb7b1eea8cab8198c494dd7d4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> > Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 15:10:21 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] Remove old Makefile DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS example > > The correct way to implement most DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS these days is > to just use debhelper. The detailed Makefile fragment was probably > more confusing than helpful, given that it predates dpkg-buildflags, > uses install -s (which Policy elsewhere recommends against), and > manually does other work debhelper would automate. Replace it with > a note that packaging helper frameworks do much of this work. > --- > policy/ch-source.rst | 35 +++-------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) LGTM. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature