Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'
>>"David" == David Engel <email@example.com> writes:
Warning> sarcasm ahead. I see. Are you in the habit of always
David> running cpp, cc1, as and ld separately when you compile? You
David> never know what gcc might try to do behind your back. :-)
Actually, gcc does produce asm files, if you ask it to. And I
have looked at assembly, when unsure about what was happening to
locks. It took me years to trust gcc, and often I run a compile on at
least two other compilers and lints before I trust things.
But then, I'm paranoid. This is not the response you expected,
So I'll desist ;-).
Michael> In other words, I suspect, they should be official parts of
Michael> dpkg---maintainers could use them with no risk of causing
Michael> problems with people doing new ports or whatever.
>> If you-all really mean dpkg, this is out of the scope of this
>> requirements process.
David> By who's decision?
Call the subject dpkg improvements if you want to talk about
that, and I'll be a polite spectator (calling it debmake replacement
confuses me, and calls for my active participation; I'm interested in
getting a movement on the debmake issue).
I'll definitely look at implementing a spec kind of thing
(could someone mail me a rpm spec file, please?) into the document
I'm building (look for a posting in a couple of days).
I apologize if me demeanor has offended people on the list,
such was not my intent.
Marriage is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second
marriage is the triumph of hope over experience.
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.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