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

Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4



On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:52:26AM -0400, Eric Dorland wrote:
> That's what they should do, the only real disadvantage is that it
> makes the diff a bit bigger. But it makes the build much more
> predictable and reliable. I wonder if a should in policy or a lintian
> warning would be helpful.

People will probably respond well to some example code that they can
stuff in their rules files.  A rule named, say, "dist" or "debiandist".

(I'd lean in favor of "dist" since the Debian-ness of it is already
implied by the name of the rules file: debian/rules.)

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    Build a fire for a man, and he'll
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    be warm for a day.  Set a man on
branden@debian.org                 |    fire, and he'll be warm for the
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Attachment: pgp8aH8_bpD0s.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: