Stuart Prescott writes ("Bug#845715: Required targets must not write outside of
the source package tree"):
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > +This restriction is intended to prevent source package builds creating
> > +and depending on state outside of themselves, thus affecting multiple
> > +independent rebuilds. In particular, the required targets must not
> > +attempt to write into ``HOME``.
>
> At the risk of letting perfect be the enemy of good, is it obvious following
> this final remark about HOME that:
Thanks for your attention to detail :-), but:
Yes, I think it is. "In particular" introduces a statement which is
clarifies the meaning of the general rule, and assists the reader, by
giving an example. I don't think "in particular" can be correctly
used to extend (or except from) a general rule in the way required by
the misreadings you are concerned about.
"All felines have four legs. In particular, cats do."
* "All felines have four legs. In particular, dogs do." <- wrong
> It's reasonably common to redefine HOME within d/rules to make the
> build robust against a user's config files and/or to prevent
> unwanted config files being created.
Having said all that, I don't know if it would be worth explicitly
mentioning this very general and useful technique for the benefit of
readers who haven't osmosed or reinvented it.
Thanks,
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.
