Jonathan Nieder: > Niels Thykier wrote: > >> debhelper cannot see "inside" the upstream build system. If you modify >> a .c file, debhelper won't notice and will currently just skip the >> entire build. Alternatively, debhelper will have to invoke the build >> system and rely on it to not be flawed. > > Yes, I think that would be a good behavior (invoking the build system > and if it's flawed, let the packager work with upstream on it). > Especially because the effect is directly on the packagers --- buildds > wouldn't be hurt by this, as you note. > > Is that the proposed debhelper change? Where can I sign up? :) >
You can get this behaviour today with: dh $@ --without build-stamp (You probably want to implement "Rules-Requires-Root: no" first) My idea would be to use Rules-Requires-Root as conditional to whether the build-stamp should be enabled by default in a future compat level. The rationale for that conditional being that we do not want to invoke the build system as root by default. >> AFAICT, the current practise recommended by policy have the same issue >> (assuming you implement the stamp file or touch the "build" file). > > Right, using "touch build" or build-stamp is a last resort, for > dealing with irreperable upstream build systems. Having a proper > upstream build system is much better (and isn't all that rare). > > Thanks, > Jonathan > Thanks, ~Niels