Re: debmake: a compromise?
>>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph <debian@waterf.org> writes:
>> If there was a -no-act option, I culd use debstd to check my rules
>> file even if I don't run it in the rules itself, so my package is
>> not dependent on debstd, but it gets the benefit thereof.
Christoph> debstd is called from the rules file and does not check
Christoph> it. It only checks the binaries your rules file installed
Christoph> into debian/tmp for certain things.
You misunderstood Manoj. What he meant was that if there is a
--no-exec option, debstd simply prints the commands that it would
perform instead of actually running those coomands. Then the
maintainer can use this information to check his own rule file which
doesn't use debstd directly. This would remove the problem of package
building depending on a _particular_ version of debstd.
Better still, is to start debstd in deb-make and produce a template
rule file that contains the lines suggested by debstd.
--
Billy C.-M. Chow <cmchow@se.cuhk.edu.hk>
Department of Systems Engineering
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
--
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: