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

Re: deb-make

On 17 Feb 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> 	Please, people, stop this trend of developing packages behind
>  closed doors; I for one would welcome a discussion of this issue
>  again.

Ok. _(:

The way we build packages now is broken IMHO:

We have the debian/rules Makefile invoque the 'upstream' Makefile, and 
then move around produced files into debian/tmp/... by adding extra shell 
command into debian/rules.

IMHO, we RightThing(tm) to do is to invoque:
'./configure --prefix=/usr && make all && make install prefix=`pwd`/debian/tmp/usr'

and concentrate the packaging work on other things than 'mv' and 'cp' 
files around (Note that if the command line above does its work 
correctly, no 'debstd' or other program is required).

	My explanation may not be very clear, so to put it short I think it's
better to have _1_ makefile doing his job properly, than having one doing
part of the work, and another catching what the first one misses. 

	Writing another 'debstd' tool (however good it is) still is a poor 
way to 'patch' a lazy upstream Makefile. I do think the solution is to 
have the upstream Makefile do its job properly. Could we have a 'debstd' 
program that does this instead?

NB: My above example uses autoconf, but it's possible to write good 
makefiles without using it.

	What do you think?


-     ** Linux **         +-------------------+             ** WAW **     -
-  vincent@debian.org     | RENARDIAS Vincent |          vincent@waw.com  -
-  Debian/GNU Linux       +-------------------+      http://www.waw.com/  -
-  http://www.debian.org/           |            WAW  (33) 4 91 81 21 45  -
-                                   |         Luminy  (33) 4 91 82 85 32  -

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: