[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Future of debian-cd

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:16:39PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - complicated shell code in Makefile is ugly, it was supposed to
>   not need to be modified, and in fact many parts of the Makefile
>   were modified for various purposes

I think the idea of using a Makefile at all wasn't that good in retrospect. 
Maybe it would be nicer to use "run-parts": A top-level script executes
everything in a "stages" directory in alphabetical order. The individual
stages could then have further directories of their own where
substage-scripts for that stage of the process are stored. This would get 
rid of all that "hook" ugliness...

There could be different top-level "stages" directories for the different 
CD flavours, with symlinks to scripts which are identical between any two 
of them. This has the advantage that you can fork code any time; instead of 
linking from the sarge version to the woody version, just make a copy of 
the script, then make changes/hacks which are woody-only.

Each top-level "stages" dir could also come with configuration files 
preconfigured for that particular CD flavour.

Well, something like that... I don't know if the above would work. :)

> - we have too many imbricated options which do not make sense to many
>   of us, it's time to see if we shouldn't get rid of some of them
>   (or at least hide them somewhere deeper than CONF.sh)

Yeah, CONF.sh has become far too big. It might make sense to split stuff up 
into several config files - after all, if e.g. you don't want to generate 
.jigdo files, you don't even need to look at the related options.

> - how do you think we should proceed ? should I start from a completely
>   new repository and import only what I want to keep ? should we work in
>   a branch of the actual repository ?

IMHO the kind soul who tackles this should start from scratch. :-7



  __   _
  |_) /|  Richard Atterer     |  GnuPG key:
  | \/¯|  http://atterer.net  |  0x888354F7
  ¯ '` ¯

Reply to: