Dear Gianfranco, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > > > specially because in Debian we don't even use version.sh script to > > > fill the dkms.conf file. > > > > I don't understand what you refer to with "in Debian". Do you mean the > > fact that I didn't ship the package's upstream's version.sh? Do you > > think I should? > > I think we shouldn't, because it is used/useful only at build time...
Thanks for your comment on this! > > > Can you please remove the two lines? > > > > At least not in the way you propsed. Hence removing the tag "patch". > > > > > this is what we do to test dkms packages: > > [...] > > > dkms_pkg=$(bash -c ". $dkms_conf; echo \$PACKAGE_NAME" 2>/dev/null) > > > dkms_ver=$(bash -c ". $dkms_conf; echo \$PACKAGE_VERSION" 2>/dev/null) > > > > You could do ". $dkms_conf > /dev/null" > > interesting, this works indeed: [...] > (and uploaded in sid) Yay! :-) > Honestly, I still think my patch is something sane to do (of course, as > Debian specific patch), because of this done in rules file: > override_dh_dkms: > sed -e > 's#`\./version.sh`#$(DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM)#;s#^PRE_BUILD="\(.*\)"#PRE_BUILD="\1 > $(DKMS_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS)"#' dkms.conf > debian/dkms > dh_dkms > > so, in any case, that version.sh is *never* ran in Debian packaging, > so the whole pushd/popd are useless in this context. Yeah, and the version.sh call itself can be removed, too. Will do. Thanks for bringing this up despite the initially differing opinions. :-) Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, https://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 `- | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE