Dear Maintainer,
Colin Watson writes:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:45:18PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
>> B. The Technical Committee affirms the Debian Policy requirement that
>>debian/rules must be a makefile. All packages in the archive,
>>including leave, are required t
reassign 640874 leave
reopen 640874
thanks
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 07:45:18PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:42:08 -0700
> From: Don Armstrong
> To: 640874-d...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile
Russ Allbery writes:
> Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> dh:
> A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the
>same interface as a debian/rules file implem
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:30:47PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> My impression is that discussion on this bug has wound down, and that it's
> unlikely that any new information is going to come up. To me, that
> implies that we should call for a vote.
I'm pretty sure I'm unconstitutionally late for
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120326 20:58]:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> > dh:
>
> > A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> dh:
>
> A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the
>same interface as a debi
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile"):
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
> >> B. The Technical Committee affirms the Debian Policy requirement that
> >>debian/rules must be a makefile. All packages in
Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile"):
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> > further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> >
Russ Allbery writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
>> further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
>> dh:
>> A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the
>>same interface
Russ Allbery writes:
> Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
> further discussion, since I'm quite sure that we're not going to outlaw
> dh:
> A. debian/rules is not required to be a makefile, only to implement the
>same interface as a debian/rules file implem
My impression is that discussion on this bug has wound down, and that it's
unlikely that any new information is going to come up. To me, that
implies that we should call for a vote.
Based on Ian's last response, I think the ballot has two options plus
further discussion, since I'm quite sure that
Ian Jackson wrote:
But I agree with Josip's point about the spirit vs. the letter: if we
write into policy that debian/rules must be a makefile, Josip can
comply with the policy by what amounts IMO to trickery. And it's not
trickery that's simple to forbid, given that that trickery is exactly
wh
Josip Rodin writes ("Bug#640874: leave: debian/rules is not a Makefile"):
> Since my reasoning here didn't seem to leave a particular positive dent with
> those tech-ctte members who have responded so far, I would just like to
> solicit Ian Jackson's input, g
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:18:50PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Ahem, so I must quote it:
>
> #!/bin/sh -e
>
> tmp=`pwd`/debian/leave
>
> if echo $DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS | grep -vq noopt; then
> optflag="-O2"
> fi
> if echo $DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS | grep -vq nostrip; then
> stripflag="-s"
> fi
Does n
Since my reasoning here didn't seem to leave a particular positive dent with
those tech-ctte members who have responded so far, I would just like to
solicit Ian Jackson's input, given his role in defining and implementing the
debian/rules calling convention originally. In other worse, if I can't
c
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:18:34PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> (I don't recall if anyone tried to loop you into that discussion; if that
> didn't happen, that was a flaw in that discussion process to be sure.)
Nope, sorry, I missed that.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 04:53:01PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > > And still, this is a Makefile so you can quickly reuse Makefile snippets
> > > that others have been writing to add support for supplementary targets
> > > (like get-orig-source) or even to influence the environment (like the
>
Colin Watson wrote:
> * While it's true that make is largely delegating responsibility to
> another program here, it's a common program used by many packages,
> and so serves to consolidate a lot of boring common code which is a
> fairly standard software virtue. I'd be hard-pressed
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 02:38:15PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> But, to return to the former idea of arguing for flexibility for just one
> moment - that's moot because of another reason - we *already* allow a
> near-infinite amount of abuse through flexibility, because you can make a
> makefile for
Josip Rodin writes:
> It was just an arbitrary conversion of a single "is" to "must be" (in an
> unrelated let's-use-consistent-RFC-like-wording drive) that went
> unchecked.
I wanted to mention here that this didn't just suddenly happen as a result
of the existing Policy wording without any fur
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 16:18:50 +0200, Josip Rodin
wrote:
> > If you ignore all transitions constraints, sure. At the same time, Debian
> > decided debian/rules must be a Makefile and you're not adjusting to cope.
>
> No, "Debian" did not decide to explicitly ban non-shell rules files at any
> point
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > The API is not the only thing to take into account. Using anything else
> > than make is unexpected for most other developers (some of them who might
> > have to NMU your package at some point).
>
> I agree, but that argument goes both ways - we already
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:38:39PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi Josip,
>
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2011, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Instead, it is important to retain the age-old idea that the rules file has
> > its own calling convention (an API) that isn't linked to one specific
> > implementation and
Hi Josip,
On Thu, 08 Sep 2011, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Instead, it is important to retain the age-old idea that the rules file has
> its own calling convention (an API) that isn't linked to one specific
> implementation and is instead properly specified in Debian policy, allowing
> developers some co
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:50:33AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Nevertheless, merely having that doubt in developers' minds is a cost;
> 17058 packages can definitely use this technique, while for 1 package we
> have to think about it ... so I would still want to hear of a clear
> benefit to allowi
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:43:44AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Would you mind explaining here why you feel it is important to retain the
> flexibility of multiple implementation languages for debian/rules?
Now, I wouldn't actually put it that way - because that would imply that we
could suddenly
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 10:43:44AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> I can provide a concrete practical reason for requiring make as the
> implementation language: at least one, probably two, of the options for
> build-arch handling
> (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=629385#93) require
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 09:59:40AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> The policy wording was hardcoded like that basically because Manoj is overly
> attached to make, we had long and unfruitful discussions about it (I forget
> the bug number, search the archives), and no actual practical reason to
> chang
reassign 640874 tech-ctte
thanks
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:21:32AM +0200, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: leave
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 4.9 - must directive
> User: lint-ma...@debian.org
> Usertags: debian-rules-not-a-makefile debian-rules-missing-required-target
> debian-rul
Package: leave
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 4.9 - must directive
User: lint-ma...@debian.org
Usertags: debian-rules-not-a-makefile debian-rules-missing-required-target
debian-rules-missing-recommended-target
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi
"""
4.9 Main building scr
30 matches
Mail list logo
