Re: Possible framework for `debmake replacement'
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I too am dubious about the "compiler" form of deb-make replacement.
> The problem is that it does not catch up as policy changes. It would
> be very difficult to make a "compiler" form of rules builder that would
> automaticaly incorporate policy changes into existing packages as
> deb-make often does. Once you edit the generated script, you don't want
> to send it back through the tool again and lose your changes.
>
> I would prefer to see a run-time hueristic something like debstd with
> much more fine control over overrides.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
I don't think is a good think that a package will differ when build wait
a new version of a tool (I know, if I change the version of gcc, the
program could be change but not that's much!) Elsewhere, exception case
handled by the maintainer could be broke by a change in the tool use. In
place I suggest to use a debstd-compiler only in Template file or in
get-orig-source (depending how it will works...).
just my 2 pennies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"It takes more hot water to make cold water hot
than cold water to make hot water cold."
-- Jon Blummer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabien Ninoles aka le Veneur aka le Corbeau
E-mail: fab@tzone.org
WebPage: http://www-edu.gel.usherb.ca/ninf01
E-mail me with "get pgp key" in the subject to get my public key
PGP KEY [E3723845]: 1C C1 4F A6 EE E5 4D 99 4F 80 2D 2D 1F 85 C1 70
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: