Edward Bartolo <edbarx@???> writes:
>> On 15/12/15 21:00, Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>>> Some more remarks on the packaging efforts so far: The rules file in the
>>> git repository is
>

>>> override_dh_auto_clean:
>>>          dh_auto_clean

>
> Hi,
>
> I am very hesitant about deleting this particular line as it has been
> added to clean the sources after using dpkg-buildpackage.

No matter what you believe about this, overriding a command with itself
is a pointless exercise. dh_auto_clean will be invoked as part of the
'dh clean' sequence, cf

[rw@duesterwald]~/work/exec-tools $dh clean --no-act
dh_testdir
dh_auto_clean
dh_clean

and the override could be used to run some other command at this point
in the sequence instead, cf

    If debian/rules contains a target with a name like
        "override_dh_command", then when it would normally run
        dh_command, dh will instead call that target.
        [dh(1)]

> Sincerely, I am mixed up about this, as my edits resulted into sources
> out of which Debian packages can be build without problems.

If you duplicate the commands in the makefile to some random dh step,
eg, dh_auto_configure,

[rw@doppelsaurus]~/devuan/netman#whatis dh_auto_configure
dh_auto_configure (1) - automatically configure a package prior to building

this will - for as long as dh_auto_configure is a no-op for the package
in question - work just as good (or bad) as the proper procedure which
would be 'rely on dh_auto_build' to build the code by doing the
equivalent of a 'make all' provided you also disable dh_auto_build.

But the idea behind this system is nevertheless that dh_auto_build knows
how to call the 'upstream package Makefile' which - in turn - knows how
to build the upstream code.

> Sorry, I am perplexed and cannot take decisions that may impact badly
> already working code.

I suggest that you at least test proposed changes before making wild
claims about them.