Re: debmake: a compromise?
Hi,
>>"Christoph" == Christoph <debian@waterf.org> writes:
Christoph> On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Chow Chi-Ming wrote:
>> You misunderstood Manoj. What he meant was that if there is a
>> --no-exec option, debstd simply prints the commands that it would
>> perform instead of actually running those coomands. Then the
Christoph> There is no "commands" that are run by debstd. You have the
Christoph> image that debstd simply generates a series of
Christoph> commands. This is not true. debstd dynamically decides
Christoph> these things and does a lot besides the common commands in
Christoph> debian/rules. If it would be that simple then I would have
Christoph> done it a while ago.
Even if we were writing rules for debian/rules, we could still
have dynamic rules. ($(checkdir) in most rules files checks
dynamically if the rules file is being invoked from the correct
directory).
I think what we are asking is technically feasible. This
discussion is not an wishlist from naive people asking for the moon;
and we definitely do not want to give up functionality.
>> maintainer can use this information to check his own rule file
>> which doesn't use debstd directly. This would remove the problem
>> of package building depending on a _particular_ version of debstd.
Christoph> A package never depends on a particular version of
Christoph> debstd. All versions of debstd are compatible for most
Christoph> packages.
Hmmm.
manoj
--
"Can you imagine what it would be like if there had been ``look and
feel'' lawsuits over automobiles?" Mark Diekhans (markd@sco.com)
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: