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

Re: Renaming of automake to automake1.4



* Branden Robinson (branden@debian.org) wrote:
> 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".

Err, you mean some sample code that runs automake, autoconf, etc? I
mean that really depends on what you've changed, I don't think its
really necessary in the rules file. Or am I misunderstanding you?
 
> (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.)
> 



-- 
Eric Dorland <dorland@lords.com>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Attachment: pgpq3ZQkd5rmd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: