Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Andy Mortimer wrote:
> So instead, perhaps, we can define *rules* in a file somewhere which can
> be included in debian/rules with the include statement. [... ]
I have an idea related to this:
Since debian/rules has to be executable, we can change the policy ("only
the wording, not the spirit") and allow it to be a shell script, *as long
as it behaves as if it were a Makefile*.
We could then write something like:
#!/bin/sh
source /usr/lib/debmakelib
[ ... ]
and use bash macro definitions from "debmakelib" or whatever.
I think this would add some flexibility.
[ I have no idea about how a shell-script debian/rules should be written,
however. ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: latin1
iQCVAgUBMw4K7iqK7IlOjMLFAQHjhgP/cHwMmsSvUMIGjagtleQpZoFAiA3PnhIR
18IDQ+Lpg4jU2pPghiwNIIkOPXjccgKHU58DmVvEnf2yaZ4JEpmMggOFllKpqtM1
QTyNYBTjtrOFZD3dA8cL7NzSYNoMSWIkFEnrCTRj+zSGD7Sa7W6QreefzWVK2gvn
In11lAH3iHI=
=zpxy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es>
--
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: