Re: debmake & dpkg
On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Dale Scheetz wrote:
dwarf >been unable/unwilling to invest my meager resources in trying to keep up.
dwarf >For simple, uncomplicated packages where all the issues are clear deb-make
dwarf >appears to be a wonderful boon to the package maintainer, specially if the
dwarf >package has regular changes comming down the pipe. But, for more complex
dwarf >packages, like libraries and multi binary source packages, it's
dwarf >capabilities are still "in development".
Debmake support all of those points. glibc is being done using debmake.
The base libraries are done using debmake.
All my big multi-binary packages are done using debmake.
dwarf >Because of this, I would suggest that deb-make not go into dpkg-dev until
dwarf >it is clear that it does the job across the board.
What does debmake not do? (There certainly are minor points granted).
Forcing the debmake functionality on others is certainly not my intend.
But I would like to see support for debmakes functionality (which is
always optional at the developers discretion!) in dpkg where most of it
would neatly integrate.
I think you should have a look at the package before offering opinions on
it.
--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
PGP Public Key = FB 9B 31 21 04 1E 3A 33 C7 62 2F C0 CD 81 CA B5
--
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: