Re: debmake: a compromise?
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> I just want to make two points:
> 1) now I understand why Ian feels the way he does.
> 2) now I understand why Bruce feels the way he does.
> You really shouldn't be the one to write the "standard" package
> We really should just bag it and go with RPM.
Perhaps you really should bag yourself (?) and go to RedHat.. =b
debstd it's just a script that
1) finds manpages in the package, decides if they should be compressed and
2) checks file permissions
3) checks for common maintainer errors and issues warnings when apropiate
(e. g. I once installed a file with install, and it had the execute bit,
debstd warned: `executable in non standard place').
What Christoph was trying to explain you was that if dewbstd simply
inserted commands into the rules file, one vital capability of debstd
would be lost. Now, if we decide that manpages less than 15kb shouldn't be
compressed, or libraries in /usr/bin shouldn't have the executable bit
set, a new version of netstd will automatically handle this new standard
And: `Work done is work done'. If you think that these issues should be
hanbdled in a better way, you are free to code a better utility. You are
free to not use debstd (you are free to run RedHat also).
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