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

Re: Package which uses jam (instead make)

Scripsit "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org>

>  If you want to tie debian/rules to GNU make, then modify policy to
>  say so: a GNU Makefile.  Arguments regarding the nature of Debian's
>  /usr/bin/make are not strong enough, not as a definition for an
>  interface.

debian/rules should be portable enough to work with any implementation
of make [1]. That's the interface. If I have an implmentation that I
know supports include files, I should be able to ask *my*
implementation of make to include *somebody else's* debian/rules and
expect it to work.

[1] Perhaps. The dh_make templates for debian/rules actually do
    contain gnuisms, so this is not true in practise.

>  "excutable makefile", ok, this is the point of contempt.

If we're actually regarding each other's views with contempt, then
there's not much point in continuing the discussion, I think.

>  And *that* is also an interface definition.  Calling these make
>  variables is just bad wording, these are passed via the environment.

Actually, makefile variables can also be passed on the command line,
at least with the implementations of make that I'm familiar with.

>  The fact that GNU make turns these into make variables is not
>  important.

It *is* a part of the interface that I can compile my own patched
version of make that hardcodes one or more of these variables, and
expect things to work when I ask it to interpret debian/rules.

Henning Makholm  "Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke?"

Reply to: