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

Re: debmake: a compromise?


>>"Christoph" == Christoph  <debian@waterf.org> writes:
Christoph> 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

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

	Even if we were writing rules for debian/rules, we could still
 have dynamic rules. ($(checkdir) in most rules files checks
 dynamically if the rules file is being invoked from the correct

	I think what we are asking is technically feasible. This
 discussion is not an  wishlist from naive people asking for the moon;
 and we definitely do not want to give up functionality.

>> 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.

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


 "Can you imagine what it would be like if there had been ``look and
 feel'' lawsuits over automobiles?" Mark Diekhans (markd@sco.com)
Manoj Srivastava               <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA            <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>

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: