Re: I take debmake
Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
> With debmake, new functionality was added all the time, and was added into
> the same debstd program, changing its behavior, and so different versions
> could have widly differing results on the same package.
>
> With debstd, each individual program has a well-defined job, and so their
> behavior will not change, execpt for bugfixes, and to comply with changes
> in debian policy.
I'm sure you realize that this is not a very good argument. "To comply
with changes in debian policy" means that Rob's sample conversation
could still take place.
An extremist might argue that we should include the source for gcc,
binutils, perl, along with the package as a change in them could also
affect the build. It's all a matter of how volatile the tools are:
debmake debstd gcc, binutils, make, ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
high medium low
On this scale, we draw a line somewhere. Everything to the left of
the line we either can't use or must include the source for.
Everything to the right is ok.
Guy
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: