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

Re: Increasing regularity of build systems

On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:31:30PM -0500, David Welton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:39:05AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > > Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be
> > > good to standardize on them to some degree.
> > No.
> I didn't say "make them THE standard"

What did you mean then?

> I suggested that it may be a
> good idea to have a more standard API to use in rules files, to avoid
> too much diversity.

The rule file API is simple.  Anything Make takes, debian/rules takes,
and the following targets are guaranteed to exist: build, binary-arch,
binary-indep, binary, clean.  I think that's a pretty good API, and
forcing debhelper on everybody's throat will not touch this interface
at all.

> Currently, anarchy reigns within debian/rules,
> and it's a pain to work with.

Can you be more specific?

> Do you have any constructive criticism,

My constructive criticism is that you have not given any good reason for
making everybody use debhelper.  If you had, I might have considered
reiterating the well-known old arguments against this idea.  And you
can still do it.

> or a better alternative?

Yes.  Don't standardise on debhelper.  Rather fix the specific problems
you might have by amending policy to require certain things without
locking everybody down to a particular helper package.  Right now your
concerns are vague and I'm not at all sure your proposed solution is a
good solution.

Besides, this all belongs in -policy, not -devel.

%%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % gaia@iki.fi % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%%

                             (John Cage)

Reply to: