Re: deb-make
Vincent Renardias:
> We have the debian/rules Makefile invoque the 'upstream' Makefile, and
> then move around produced files into debian/tmp/... by adding extra shell
> command into debian/rules.
There's nothing in the policy manual that says you have to do it this way.
Most of my packages and lots of other packages I've seen modify the upstream
Makefile so it accepts a installation prefix, and run something like
'make install prefix=debian/tmp'. It's a lot easier to add support for an
installation prefix to a Makfile than it is to convert a Makefile to use
autoconf.
> My explanation may not be very clear, so to put it short I think it's
> better to have _1_ makefile doing his job properly, than having one doing
> part of the work, and another catching what the first one misses.
>
> Writing another 'debstd' tool (however good it is) still is a poor
> way to 'patch' a lazy upstream Makefile. I do think the solution is to
> have the upstream Makefile do its job properly. Could we have a 'debstd'
> program that does this instead?
But this isn't what I use debstd for at all! Well, ok, it does install a
couple of man pages if the upstream Makefile neglects to do that. But I
mostly use it to install the documentation and debian control files, and to
do checks on the package. I don't think it's possible to write a tool that
fixes broken or incomplete upstream Makefiles (without AI ;-).
--
"true - do nothing, successfully" - - true (1)
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: