[Build-common-hackers] waf.mk and broken fakeroot debian/rules clean call in packaging-only branches.
dr at jones.dk
Sat Apr 2 16:01:49 UTC 2011
On Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 04:58:48PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>On 30/03/11 11:24, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>> [ ! -f Makefile ] || $(MAKE) distclean
>> I therefore agree that we should try(!) to handle gracefully the waf
>> file missing (thanks for insisting, Krzysztof!), but I disagree that
>> we whould do it by simply adding a leading dash.
>So something like e.g.
>[ ! -f waf ] || ./waf clean
>(or however waf clean is called, I'm not familiar with it).
Yes. Sorry for being vague.
>Sounds good to me.
>> ...and we should fix the existing too relaxed snippets while at it.
>I'm fine with that too, as long as we keep supporting `debclean' with
>only a debian/ folder (this is the usual way to do packaging with
>svn-buildpackage, and there are probably 1000+ packages in the archive
>packaged that way).
My aim here is to improve reliability when invoking build rules (in
particular those triggered by the clean target) in a fully prepared
Preserving or improving reliability of invoking build rules on
half-baked source packages is only a possible added bonus.
If reliability is an issue, then use --svn-export or --svn-dont-clean
option to svn-buildpackage, or whatever else pre-building tricks
necessary to establish a fully prepared source tree before invoking
>> I imagine introducing a new variables DEB_CLEAN_RELAX and
>> DEB_CLEAN_RELAX_PREFIX (inherited as e.g. DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_RELAX and
>> DEB_MAKE_CLEAN_..., DEB_SCONS_CLEAN_... etc. to allow mixing classes
>> and override only some of them). The content of ...RELAX_PREFIX is
>> then prefixed relevant clean rules when ...RELAX is non-empty.
>> I fear this will trigger a pile of FTBFS so wonder how to best
>> a) DEB_CLEAN_RELAX=1 by default
>> b) DEB_CLEAN_RELAX=1 by default with warning until weezy release
>> c) DEB_CLEAN_RELAX unset by default
>> What do you think?
>I'm not too sure what changes you mean that would cause FTBFS. Can you
>say a real example?
Packages with unusually named makefile.
For makefile.mk (and derivatives) DEB_MAKE_MAKEFILE is only optional, so
we can only rely on testing its existence at clean time when set.
Particularly for that snippet I believe it is safe to fall back to
checking for GNUmakefile, Makefile and makefile (in that order). I just
imagined that logic to turn out to be flawed for some corner cases, or
similarly so for other snippets.
>> Please respect the dual CC as requested by Krzysztof!
>The CC wasn't in his mail.
If nitpicking then you are right: Krzysztofs first post omitted Rémi -
his second (which you replied to) was To: Rémi and Cc: the list.
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Build-common-hackers