Re: debmake: a compromise?
On Sat, 22 Feb 1997, Richard G. Roberto wrote:
> > > We really should just bag it and go with RPM.
> > 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
> > decisions...
> What does netstd have to do with this? Whatever _debstd_ does
> automatically needs to be REDONE when things change (i.e. a
> package needs to be rebuilt). In which case, debstd get rerun.
> This would still happen if commands were placed into the rules
> file and the benefits of using debstd to do it (automatically)
> would be the same. Either you just don't see my point, or I just
> don't see yours.
What's the point of inserting lines in a program, instead of a simple
> > 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).
> I think I'll just go back to Slackware and roll my own. I'll no
> longer try to push Linux into my corporate environment (not until
> it matures both technically and culturally).
We are so scared...!!!! Please don't go away..! =b
(but... doesn't Slackware run Linux? =) )
> I have enough crap to deal with without dealing with your emotional
> baggage too.
To the others readers of the list:
Sorry, I can't help posting this type of message in this type of
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