Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'
On 21 Feb 1997, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Andy Mortimer <andy.mortimer@poboxes.com> writes:
> > The core of this package would be the helper program(s), which for the
> > sake of this proposal will be a set of programs with the prefix
> > `dmake-'.
>
> Maybe it would be less, uh, clutterful (is that a word?), to have all
> of these as separate programs, possibly in /usr/lib/dmake, while
> having a single program, dmake, that acts as the "controller"?
That was part of the idea, which is why they all started with dmake-. But
yes, I see your point ...
> The user could, if he or she wanted to, call the programs directly,
> but would be encouraged to use dmake and a variety of flags.
That was my idea at first. But thinking about it, I reckon you'd run into
problems with arguments to the control script. Like, for documentation
you need an option to supress compression, but that doesn't make any
sense for a binary where you might want to not strip it, and so on. You
could either re-use options for different purposes, which would be
confusing, or try to keep them all distinct, which probably wouldn't be
much better.
I suppose a third option is to pass the name of the script as the first
argument to dmake, and then the arguments for that script afterwards, but
this seems ugly to me.
> I don't know if anyone cares, but I think having a zillion little
> scripts may be as bad as having one big one.
Point taken, but I'm not sure the alternatives are any better. Let me
know if you still disagree, and exactly how you think the dmake script
would work; I agree it's neater in some ways.
Cheers,
&E
--
Andy Mortimer, andy.mortimer@poboxes.com
http://www.netforward.com/poboxes/?andy.mortimer
Finger asm21@asm21.emma.cam.ac.uk for PGP public key
--
I open my eyes, and look at the floor,
And now I don't see you anymore.
--
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: