Hi! On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 21:53:31 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@ieee.org> writes: > > I will cut a normal bug on dpkg, and a serious one on make, and > > make the former block the latter while we figure otu what to do. The > > options, as I see it are: > > > 1) Do nothing. retain make-3.81 in Debian forever more. Needless to > > say, this is not very attractive. Pro: There is no action to > > take. Con: Almost every other distro is shipping a more recent > > make. We will continue to diverge from everyone else, and already > > the featires have diverged enough that people are having to add > > special cases in the vuild system for the Debian family of > > distributions. > > 2) Hack dpkg-buildpackage to always load B-D-I, and go back to just > > calling ./debian/rules build. This is what we used to do. Pro: it > > is pretty easy to do (umm, I would think, but I don't know the dpkg > > code base so well anymore). This has the con of the inefficiency we > > have tried to eliminate, in that all the build dependencies are > > loaded for every build, even when not strictly needed. > > 3) We state that packages must provide build-arch and build-indep for > > Jessie. This should trivially be true for every package using cdbs > > or debhelper (or, heaven forbid, my old home brew build system), > > and have dpkg-buildpackage call them without testing to see if they > > exist. We would need to do another archive rebuild with the > > modified dpkg-buildpackage to see how many packages do not > > actually not implement these targets. > > Well, 2 is going back on something that we're trying to transition, and 1 > seems obviously unacceptable. 3 is where we were trying to get to anyway. > I vote for just biting the bullet and trying to do 3 for jessie.
I think we should first understand why the detection is failing with the newer make. I'm taking a look now. Once that's done we might just be able to fix (or workaround) one of: * make * dpkg-buildpackage * affected packages If none of the above can be fixed then I'm all for just removing the detection code, although that might be painful, AFAIR the numbers were a bit scary last time Roger posted them? Using the debhelper detection logic, which implies parsing make output looks very much unappealing to me. Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140430142237.ga23...@gaara.hadrons.org
