Re: debstd-like tool for those who don't want to use debmake
On Sun 21 Sep 1997, Joey Hess wrote:
> I've been using debstd since it came out, and I appreciate it, but I have
> always had some nagging doubts about it. And I've seen postings by others
> who have problems with debstd as well. So I spent today prototyping a
> replacement. But first, some of the problems with debstd:
please look at automake. i like it because :
- it's written in perl (it's easier to read perl than shell)
- it's well documented
- it takes an input file, and generates a (more or less :-) readable
output.
what about createing debian/rules from debian/rules.ar and create an
autorules program ? that the way you should go in my opinion.
advantages over current machanism :
- you see what is going on
- you can edit the result, if you like
- you can regenreate the program (if debmake changes, you have to re
run debmake to get up-to-date example files)
- it's transparent.
how does your debian/rules look like ?
i don't want a debian/rules that calls strange commands.
this way you have spilted debstd and maybe better documented it, but not
removed some basic flaws of debstd.
better create a (very long ?) makefile. everyone knows how to read
makefiles and debug and change them.
> 3. (It's difficult to only run part of debstd)
> Here's an excerpt of a debian/rules file that uses my
> programs, and shows how easy it is to comment various things out.
an autorules way could improve them : the code will removed (or added)
to debian/rules
> 4. (Difficult to modify debstd's behavior)
> I'm planning on putting all these little programs somewhere in
> /usr/lib/. So I expect that debian/rules will be configured to
> append to the path:
another advantage : with an "autorules" similiar to automake, you don't
need the program itself, if you only want to compile and build.
> I'm writing this message to see if anyone thinks this idea is worth
> pursuing. I'm interested to know if any of you thinks this shows promise,
> and you might use the finished version in your packages. So please write
> back and let me know if you like how it looks. At this point, it's just a
> prototype with many features of debstd missing, and I need to know if I
> should keep working on it.
i like debmake. and i debuged debstd line by line, so i know what is
going on. i like debstd. but one month ago, i read the automake
documentation, and converted severl programs to automake.
an autorule program could generate a (maybe very long, but readable)
debian/rules from debian/rules.ar (or debian/autorules or whatever).
this design is far better than calling the black box "debstd".
your current design is to create several smaller, well documented,
transparent boxes, so in its essence it doesn't differ from debstd.
(ok, several parts. debug code ? run sh -x debstd ...)
please look at automake. i know that it's documentation isn't very well,
but i like the design very much, and for me it is _the_ way you should
go. if you have questions, i'm eager to help you.
andreas
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: