Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)
- Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 07:35:00 +0000
- From: Niels Thykier <niels@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Open beta of debhelper compat level 11 (debhelper/10.10.7)
> Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote...
>> 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. 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.
> As I planned to create a related wishlist bug report about that issue:
> The --fail-missing option saved my lower back many times in the past,
> even when it was placed in dh_install. Therefore I'm certain it would
> help other people as well. In other words, I was about to suggest to
> make --list-missing the default in 11, and switch to --fail-missing
> in 12.
> Those who somehow manage to trigger a false negative (possibly
> dracut is one of these) would have to use a --ignore-missing override
> (not yet implemented) then, or use a more elaborate ignore mechanism:
They have two options (both are already implemented):
dh_missing --exclude <string>
echo '<path>' >> debian/not-installed
> That is debian/not-installed which should no longer ignore file paths
> then, also drop the warning on the usage of this file.
What made you consider the use of debian/not-installed discouraged?
I am not aware of any intentional warning against using
debian/not-installed. The only two "warnings" related to not-installed are:
* Wildcards are not supported.
* It is not a fancy global "--exclude" mechanism; only a list of files
that are (intentionally) missing. I.e. it will not make dh_install
ignore the file.
> There are often
> files that should not go into a package, *.la files from library
> packaging to begin with. Given the suggested policy change above, their
> number will increase. Overriding dh_install defeats readability of
> debian/rules, also -X might hit more files than intended.
Your concrete example suggests this could be solved by wildcard support
in debian/not-installed. Would that work for you? :)
> PS: Talking about "planned to create a wishlist bug report" ... after
> losing several hours while fiddling with dh_systemd_* I saw the need for
> a cleanup. Glad to see it's already underway.
You are welcome. :)
I was considering to punt this until compat 12, but then I found several
bugs in the interaction between dh_systemd_enable and dh_installinit.
The fixes caused a handful of RC bugs in other packages, which made me
realise that we should fix this sooner rather than later.