Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'
On Feb 24, Manoj Srivastava wrote
> >> What I think he's talking about, though, is not having to fill your
> debian> rules with cp's and mv's and ln's and so forth, but instead
> >> being able to operate at a "high level" when it comes to specifying
> >> these things.
> David> Yes, yes, yes!
> fine. How about, say, 1-10 include directives, and nary a cp
> mv or ln?
That's a step in the right direction, IMO, but I would reverse the
includes. Rather than have debian/rules included snippets from global
makefiles, I would have a global makefile include debian/rules.
> How did I get involved in an implementation discussion in a
> requirements phase?
Well, you were the one that asked for examples. :-)
David Engel ODS Networks
email@example.com 1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
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