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

Re: debmake: a compromise?

On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, Vincent Renardias wrote:

> 	After reading some comments on debstd, it seems like it's always the 
> same things that make it a 'bad' tool:
> 1/ It doesn't say what it really does.

What would you like to have it say?

> 2/ Interface changes often.

Sorry that is not true. One change in the interface (forced on the package
by some strange issue) is not "often".

> Couldn't we make it accept the option '--no-act' that would only make it 
> print the command it execute, that way, the maintainer debianising a 
> package can select the 'good' commands and include them in debian/rules.

Could be specific what you want? What "bad" commands are there?

> 1/ We know what's happening during packages still the shell commands are 
> executed from debian/rules.

debstd is a primitive shell script easy to review.

> 2/ Once this is done, the package does not need debstd any more, so any 
> changes to debstd don't matter.

Does not work. We have had a number of changes (like the md5sums) that
benefitted from the fact that debstd was in /usr/bin/debstd and not
contained in the packages itself. Simple updating debmake and rebuilding
the package leads to fixes and new features.

Please cc me on all mail related to debmake. I cannot keep up with the
volume of e-mail coming in.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
Please always CC me when replying to posts on mailing lists.

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: