Re: DRAFT: Fixing the architecture query options of dpkg.
On 8 Jan 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Jules> We should simply make dpkg-buildpackage more flexible (so
> Jules> that, for example, in the event you don't want a whole build,
> Jules> you can specify a target - if we don't already have this
> Jules> functionality).
>
> *Chuckle*. Am I the only on here that remembers
> dpkg-buildpackage as a new fangled thing? Traditionally, one did it
> all by hand (invoking the targets in ./debian/rules, I mean). I think
> if one needs to call a few targets, one may invode ./debian/rules
> directly.
Curiously, Manoj, although I'm a complete newbie, I don't use
dpkg-buildpackage. I also almost invariably use debian/rules <target>.
However, from a technical point of view it seems to me that it is
reasonable to require that debian/rules <target> is run in a certain
environment (as we already expect that binary will require root privs, but
require that build not need root privs). Furthermore, it seems reasonable
to provide a tool for creating that environment. Further even to that, I
was suggesting that dpkg-buildpackage might be the right tool to modify
for this job.
The ability to invoke debian/rules <target> by hand is not really a
'technical advantage', though convenient. I'm sure I would quickly get
used to dpkg-buildpackage <target>, which is only a few characters longer
;)
That said, perhaps dpkg-buildpackage isn't the appropriate place. I'd
suggest 'debmake', but that was used once before, for a very different
purpose.
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: