Thorsten Glaser wrote: > I wonder though, why is the BUILD_DOCS, install-indep-real, etc. > necessary, shouldn’t dpkg-buildpackage just call binary-arch and > that be it?
Background: see [1] [2] which seem to be blocked on [3]. sbuild and dpkg-buildpackage call 'debian/rules build', not 'debian/rules build-arch', for lack of a facility in 'make' to check if a target exists. Anyone who can nudge [3] along (by testing? by code review?) would be my hero. Well, that doesn't answer your question completely. Why doesn't sbuild just call binary-arch directly? To do so would be to run all build commands as (fake) root, which * is less robust (a broken build can wreak more havok) * can trigger bugs like [4] * is marginally slower in the fakeroot case git commit fb4f7069 (debian: do not build documentation on buildds, 2010-12-29) doesn't move documentation processing out of 'build' and into 'binary-indep' for similar reasons, plus * using a _minimal_ workaround like the current one makes it more likely that the package can return to sanity once [1] is fixed So much for BUILD_DOCS. install-indep-real, on the other hand, is just laziness on my part. After f9ddaa0d (debian/implicit: add proper dependencies to support 'parallel build' through make -j, 2007-11-07), the rules in debian/implicit include some dependencies on the 'install' target and I do not want to detangle them yet. I ought to have explained this in the commit log. Sorry about that. Jonathan [1] http://bugs.debian.org/478524 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/229357 [3] http://bugs.debian.org/598534 [4] http://bugs.debian.org/524309 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
