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

Re: debmake: a compromise?



On Fri, 21 Feb 1997, Chow Chi-Ming wrote:

> 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

There is no "commands" that are run by debstd. You have the image
that debstd simply generates a series of commands. This is not true.
debstd dynamically decides these things and does a lot besides the common
commands in debian/rules. If it would be that simple then I would have
done it a while ago.

> 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.

A package never depends on a particular version of debstd. All versions of
debstd are compatible for most packages.

--- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ --- +++ ---
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: