Re: Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload [and 1 more messages]
Dirk Eddelbuettel writes ("Re: Possible doc package side-effect from going source-only upload [and 1 more messages]"):
> On 19 September 2019 at 14:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
> | This would be a good idea. It is quite some effort but I think you
> | would be rewarded with significantly lower maintenance burden.
>
> Agreed in principle. Finding time to do it the right is the issue.
Indeed. Things that make this easier: 1. you'll get a good level of
support from the rest of the Debian community, who'll be generally
happy to help debug etc. 2. You will set out to produce identical
output packages, except for deliberate changes, so you can use debdiff
to see whether your new rules file works as desired.
Because of (2), you can just start with the trivial dh rules file and
iterate until it (i) builds (ii) produces the output you want.
I did this for src:xen (another complex package with a *lot* of, erm,
technical debt in its package build) last year. It took about 2-3
days' solid effort. I think it's been repaid already.
> On 19 September 2019 at 16:03, Guillem Jover wrote:
> | [a lot of detailed comments]
>
> [ Dirk's responses ]
In your position would definitely try to minimise the amount of work
to the existing rules file.
So for example:
> | - It seems generally parallel unsafe, as many targets declare what
> | should be serially executed as parallely-executed, as in:
...
> Fair. Do we build packages with 'make -j ...' now?
This can simply be disabled (and it's still disabled by default). I
would not encourage you to try to get rid of the concurrency bugs in
this rules file, other than by a complete rewrite.
Guillem's comments on this are of course very helpful, more generally.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: