Re: debmake: a compromise?
>>"Christoph" == Christoph <debian@waterf.org> writes:
Christoph> On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
>> Instead of having debstd execute the commands it now does, all I
>> want is for it to insert those commands into the rules file
>> instead.
Christoph> Debstd makes dynamic decisions based on file size etc etc
Christoph> and trough upgrading debstd you can update the packaging
Christoph> method etc etc. All those essential features are lost with
Christoph> your approach. Let someone else deal with those
Christoph> things.
Not necesarily. I think I can implement a program that
incorporates dynamic checks into a rules file, they are not mutualy
exclusive. Again, please don't take this discussion as us asking you
to spend loads of time on this that you don't have; if need be, we'll
(or at least, I can speak for myself) pitch in and help; at this
stage, however, I think it is important to identify what we perceive
as missing functionality.
Christoph> If you have improvements then share them with me and all
Christoph> will benefit from it.
Thank you. That is what we are trying to do: design
what we think may be an improvement, implementation will follow.
could we cool it, huh, people?
manoj
--
From pleasure arises sorrow, from pleasure arises fear, but he who is
freed from pleasure has no sorrow and certainly no fear. 214
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
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: