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

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: