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

Re: Future of X packages in Debian

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 02:36:43AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 11:31:50AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Right diagnosis for the wrong problem.  The problem nobody wanted to
> > futz with was hacking up the nexus of Imake and debian/rules to only
> > build the fonts and specs docs if architecture-independent packages are
> > being built.  I still have some philosophical qualms about splitting the
> > build rule like this, but I will probably yield if we add some loud
> > clues and documentation.
> Um, why not just have something like this:
> build-fonts: configure
> 	cd build-tree/xc/fonts && $(MAKE)
> install-fonts: build-fonts
> 	cd build-tree/xc/fonts && $(MAKE) install
> (specs as above)
> binary-all:
> 	[...]
> 	build-fonts
> 	[...]
> 	install-fonts

The top-level Makefiles will traverse into xc/fonts anyway.

You have to build the tree twice, feeding different variables to "make

> If you still wanted to retain the MANIFEST stuff, you could have
> debian/tmp.arch, and debian/tmp.indep, and a MANIFEST.indep.
> Am I missing something?

A little bit, but as I said, Fabio's on top of it.

I want to retain the MANIFEST stuff as long as we have a massive-ass
monolithic package.

Broken-off stuff like XTerm or a single X server is well within human

G. Branden Robinson                |      It doesn't matter what you are
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      doing, emacs is always overkill.
branden@debian.org                 |      -- Stephen J. Carpenter
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: