Peter, You raise a lot of interesting questions about the general handling of DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS in the various tools. I haven't got any real answer for the general question -- and, truthfully, your questions lead me to think it needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis -- so I'd like to close by bringing the discussion back to the narrow question of handling "nocheck".
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 10:33:18 AM CST Peter Pentchev wrote: > Um, no, not really, those were practically two different statements. I was > suggesting that somebody might write (or not have converted yet) a rules > file that invokes dh_auto_test directly from within the "build" target, and > then I gave '"build", "binary", etc' as an enumeration of examples of > targets that somebody might invoke the dh_* commands directly from :) I think it is fine if the debhelper author wants to keep the behaviour of dh_auto_test. That is certainly the conservative approach. *This* feature request is to ask that "nocheck" inhibit running tests whether they are (a) relying on the implicit dh_auto_test or (b) using rule override_dh_auto_test. In short: treat both approaches the same. -Steve
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
