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

Re: Proposal for the tools policy

 --- Eddy PetriÅ?or <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> escribió:

> I agree with all points, but I would like to make some excetions in
> *extreeme* cases for point 3. Exactly as Stefan said, autotools
> bootstrapping is sometimes really ugly and should be excepted from
> this rule.
> Also *extreeme* situations like the one in Glest where a clean rule
> did not exist in the original package would have made the debian/rules
> file a nighmare.
> I have tried it, and it is - just picture that "jam clean" in the
> package removes the Jamfile, which in turn leaves us with no target at
> all; forcing clean to depend on patch and configure is ugly, to say
> the least. Now things are more acceptable since the clean rule depends
> only on configure, in order to have the clean rule available when
> called.


In that case, like the results of recreating the products of autotools, I
understand that those files will be modified in the .diff.gz file and stored
in the SVN outside of the debian directory.

It's OK for me, it seems sensible :)

If there's no objections to the proposal, I'll try to modify the proposal to
reflect this change and add it to the conclusions part of the wiki page :)



LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 

Reply to: