Hi!

On Mon, 2024-05-06 at 12:32:45 +0200, Nicolas Boulenguez wrote:
> You have not applied
>   0001-scripts-mk-stop-hard-coding-dpkg_datadir.patch
> probably because you prefer the related parts in
>   f1175056 (build: Rework subst handling for built or installed artifacts).

As I think I mentioned at the time I think we need to parametrize sed
anyway, and as we have to subst it, removing the support from the
build system would go counter to that.

> Ironically, f1175056 seems to introduce the exact kind of human error
> that dynamic generation would prevent.
> 0001-build-spare-an-unneeded-subst-handling-in-pkg-info.m.patch

> diff --git a/scripts/mk/Makefile.am b/scripts/mk/Makefile.am
> index be6076b2c..5f086ef49 100644
> --- a/scripts/mk/Makefile.am
> +++ b/scripts/mk/Makefile.am
> @@ -18,5 +18,4 @@ include $(top_srcdir)/build-aux/subst.am
>  install-data-hook:
>       $(subst_make_file) $(DESTDIR)$(pkgdatadir)/default.mk
>       $(subst_make_file) $(DESTDIR)$(pkgdatadir)/buildtools.mk
> -     $(subst_make_file) $(DESTDIR)$(pkgdatadir)/pkg-info.mk
>       $(subst_make_file) $(DESTDIR)$(pkgdatadir)/vendor.mk

Ah, nice catch thanks, that was actually a problem with a botched
rebase for the parametrized sed, but instead I was planning on
queueing:

  
https://git.hadrons.org/cgit/debian/dpkg/dpkg.git/commit/?h=pu/build-sys-subst-sed&id=56a6de1eb823e4e9bea0c7605f326c86f601ea05

Because otherwise running the test suite on BSDs with the base sed tool,
makes them fail on the pkg-info.mk.

There's another regression that I found on various BSDs, where they
already have GNU make 4.4.1, where the buildtools test fails for the
AR and AR_FOR_BUILD checks, and I've not managed to track down yet
what the problem is (and whether this is an intentional behavior
change from its NEWS entry), but this needs to be fixed before a release
because Debian will eventually hit that, and other systems with a new
GNU make will also fail. If you could have a look that would be
appreciated, otherwise I'll try during the weekend.

Thanks,
Guillem

Reply via email to