Re: Proposal: dh_install - a new debhelper
On Don, 25 Feb 1999, Chris Waters wrote:
>
>I agree that it seems a bit inelegant to have all this done "by hand" in
>debian/rules. Were I in your shoes, I'd probably patch the upstream
>Makefile instead. A pretty fair majority of upstream packages *do* have
>install rules in their Makefile that actually work, so creating a new
>debhelper command for the rare cases where they don't seems a bit
>extreme.
Well as I said before in some other mail - there is no real difference between
doing it in the Makefile or in debian/rules. But I guess, I got your point by
now. I thought I had a quite common problem that might be worth seeking a clean
solution, but as it obviously is not so common at all, I´ll just stick with the
solution I have already.
>I might even file a wishlist bug against my own package in such a case,
>complaining about the badly designed upstream Makefile, and then forward
>that to the upstream maintainers. Of course, we all know that some
>upstream maintainers are not very responsive, which is why I'd go ahead
>and hack the upstream Makefile for myself.
Well, actually - the Makefile is not bad at all. It´s just that in a
multi-platform package (Sather supposed to compile under Win32 in some future
version) a "make install" would not have any point at all. It is far easier to
just have one tree and leave it after compilation. My main point was just that
I didn´t want to have the whole tree installed (~5 megs in tar.gz) but only
those parts I need. In addition there are some tiny tidbit files that go to
different locations in the debian FS.
Ciao,
Nobbi
Reply to: