On Fri, Oct 30 2009, Tobi wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
>
>> 1. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel make -f debian/rules build
>> 2. make -f debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
>> 3. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel ./debian/rules build
>> 4. ./debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
>> Giving you differing results is confusing enough to anyone
>> building the packages manually (You know, as free software folks, the
>> buildds are not the sole focus of our packaging) that I think it is
>> good that the policy is specific enough to block these.
>
> I just don't think this is a problem at all. If you use
> SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel, you do this for a reason. It's very specific
> for this set of packages and without reading the documentation, you
> wouldn't even consider setting SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel. And if you
> read the documentation, you know exactly, how to use
> SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX.
Oh, I am doing this for the reasons specified. But I have been
assured by policy that it is a makefile, so I think any of the 4
commands will give me the super-duper devel version, right?
Wrong!
And that is why this is a horrendous idea.
> In general: IMHO the policy shouldn't force implementation details, it
> should just enforce the interface.
The interface definition behind this is:
calling make -f debian/rules and ./debian/rules should result in
identical behaviour, all other things being equal. Either invocation
should deal identically with the environment, and with variables set on
the command line.
There.
manoj
--
Revolution, n.: A form of government abroad.
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
