Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)
- Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 11:41:00 +0000
- From: Niels Thykier <niels@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort:
> On 12/11/17 11:25, Niels Thykier wrote:
>> The debhelper compat level 11 is about to be finalized and we invite you
>> to test it out. There are no additional changes planned to compat 11 at
>> the moment, but there might be changes in response to feedback from testers.
Thanks for the feedback. :)
> One thing with compat 10 that doesn't make a lot of sense to me is how
> dh_missing is enabled by default but a no-op.
Just a clarification; dh_missing is enabled by default in all compat
levels (being an no-op). It is a no-op in all stable compat levels
(i.e. <= 10) because it mirrors the default in dh_install.
> It'd make more sense to me to
> change that in compat 11 to be enabled by default and run with --list-missing
> (--fail-missing is probably too much at this point), or make it run with --list
> or --fail-missing, but not enabled by default, and make it an addon. So that one
> can have:
> No dh_missing:
> dh $@
> Or for dh_missing:
> dh --with missing $@
> I think one of those two options would make more sense than the status quo, and
> I probably lean towards the first option (enabled by default with --list-missing).
> Thoughts? Let me know if you want a bug report about this.
I have received several requests to make --list-missing or
--fail-missing the default (#650129 and #858834) and I intend to do so
eventually. I am a little concerned with adding more changes to compat
11 (the list is rather long already), but I am happy with making
--list-missing the default for compat 12.
As for the sequences; we can add those to the next version of debhelper
(a sequence change the parameters passed to a helper). If you file a
bug for it with how you envision that, then I am happy to add it in one
of the next uploads of debhelper. :)