Re: debmake: a compromise?
On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Vincent Renardias wrote:
>
>
>
> After reading some comments on debstd, it seems like it's always the
> same things that make it a 'bad' tool:
>
> 1/ It doesn't say what it really does.
>
> 2/ Interface changes often.
>
> Couldn't we make it accept the option '--no-act' that would only make it
> print the command it execute, that way, the maintainer debianising a
> package can select the 'good' commands and include them in debian/rules.
>
> This way:
>
> 1/ We know what's happening during packages still the shell commands are
> executed from debian/rules.
>
> 2/ Once this is done, the package does not need debstd any more, so any
> changes to debstd don't matter.
>
> Seems reasonable?
How about taking this a step further and having debstd insert the
commands it uses into the rules file for you so that you can
peruse/tweak them right there? That would acomplish the same
thing and keep its "automatic" nature in tact. This would also
break the dependency on debstd within a rules file.
I'll have a look at a recent version of it and see what it would
take to implement this. If its more than an hour or so, I'll
have to pass :-(
Thanks
Richard G. Roberto
richr@bear.com
011-81-3-3437-7967 - Tokyo, Japan
--
*******************************************************************************
Bear Stearns is not responsible for any recommendation, solicitation, offer or
agreement or any information about any transaction, customer account or account
activity contained in this communication.
*******************************************************************************
--
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: