Re: deb-make
ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Ian Jackson) wrote on 19.02.97 in <[🔎] m0vxI2M-0004P7C@chiark.greenend.org.uk>:
> Instead, a template-based debian/rules generation scheme would have
> been better.
Hmm.
How about something like this:
* You have some way to describe your package. What general type of
makefile, what stuff should go into which package, and so on.
* The debian/rules creation tool uses this, plus a database of methods, to
construct the file.
* There needs to be a way to supply additional methods, in case the
standard methods don't do all you need.
* Also, there probably needs to be a way to override the resulting debian/
rules just in case something doesn't work out the way you want. Even if it
only consists of saying "this is the rules file, and don't you touch it".
An obvious idea to implement the description would be a control-like file.
Maybe something like
Makefile-Type: autoconf
(now that one's easy to do ...)
Makefile-Type: custom
Make-Build-Args: binary-linux gendocs
Manpages: bla.1 Man/*.3
Hmmm. This is getting complicated.
Problem is, there are many weird makefiles and directory layouts around.
Deciding what would be a good strategy to handle this does not seem to be
obvious, once we get to specifics instead of generalities.
This is beginning to look like a project that could use prolog :-)
MfG Kai
--
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: