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

Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'

>>"Kai" == Kai Henningsen <kai@khms.westfalen.de> writes:

Kai> andy.mortimer@poboxes.com (Andy Mortimer) wrote on 21.02.97 in
Kai> <Pine.LNX.3.95q.970221181325.15777P-100000@asm21.emma.cam.ac.uk>:

Kai> Have a special --update mode to the tool. Have it do rudimentary
Kai> detection of user stuff.

Kai> Have it *not* write a new rules file, but instead have it write a
Kai> rules.new file, and have it also write a rules.diff file by
Kai> automatically invoking diff -u or maybe even diff -ubBiw or
Kai> something like that (that is, whitespace differences are usually
Kai> not interesting).

	This is moving in the right direction, but doesn't quite go
 far enough, see my mail in another htread for more detail on a
 possible implemetation (I think we should determine what we want
 before we start talking about how to implement it)

	In short, generate rules *snippets*, and include either the
 snippet, or a user modified version, the differences acn then be
 isolated and separated into sections (corresponding to each snippet) 

Kai> This enables the maintainer to easily check what that update
Kai> does, and decide what he wants to keep, and what he wants to
Kai> junk.

	Precisely. But breaking it up into snippets allows a finer
 granularity about what to keep and what to junk. 

>> And if you're worried about them not realising their package is
>> going to break, well, they should be reading the changes files if
>> they're installing the new versions. ;)

Kai> They first need to be aware that the version has changed. Imagine
Kai> a multi- developer machine.

	I find shoving this off to the developer unacceptable.


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: