Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload"): > Maybe someone on the list can help with a sharp insight before I go trying. > > The r-base source package (for the R system and language) has a somewhat > cobbled together debian/rules [1], mostly of my making over the last 20+ > years since I helped Doug more and more and eventually took it over. I > apologize for the rough shape it is in, but hey, it works. Mostly. Read on. .... > So presumably the dependency graph within debian/rules is wrong. Would > anybody here know > - either a failsafe idiom forcing the right thing to happen > - or a more efficient way > to ensure the binary-arch is built before binary-all? Should I force it? Is > that wasteful? Is there a recommended way?
You could take the first part of the binary-arch target and split it out into something that both binary-arch and binary-indep depend on. That would probably "fix" this problem. Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload"): > not really that helpful of a comment, but I think the rules file would > be a lot more readable if you'd dropped all the old commented out code > in it. I agree with this. > (and then I think^wbelieve your arch-all problem could be solved by > switching to dh style...) This would be a good idea. It is quite some effort but I think you would be rewarded with significantly lower maintenance burden. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.