Hi!
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 11:19:27 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Bug#586691: dpkg-buildpackage and LDFLAGS etc."):
> > forcemerge 560070 586691
> > thanks
> ...
> > We have dpkg-buildflags nowadays for this.
> Thanks. I have just read #560070. Can I request that #560070 be
> fixed in a stable release update ?
Unfortunately I don't think that would be acceptable for a stable
update, as some maintainers started relying on dpkg-buildpackage's
behaviour of setting those flags and stopped setting them in their
rules files. So there's a chance of regressions. If someone were to
test build the whole archive and compare results, then the SRM might
be amenable to consider it.
> > We're migrating to a situation where packages are supposed to use
> > dpkg-buildflags to set the flags themselves rather than having them
> > set by dpkg-buildpackage but until it's more widespread we keep them
> > in the environment.
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree with this approach. It is not right to do a
> continue doing a broken thing (one which can actually break package
> builds) "for compatibility" !
Right, I agree with this. More so when we have dpkg-buildflags now.
Keeping setting the flags just entrenches the current situation and
makes it worse, as I see from time to time in changelogs, maintainers
are removing the setting of the flags from debian/rules.
I mentioned I wanted to revert the setting of the flags in a thread in
debian-devel [0] some time ago, I don't remember exactly, but I think
after discussing with Raphaël, we decided to postpone it until an
alternative solution to the centralized variable setting was provided.
The time has clearly come now, though.
regards,
guillem
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/05/msg00044.html>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
