Re: A standard patch rule for our rules
Ben Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the whole point of adding ‘patch’ as a (phony)
> target is to allow a dependency on that target,
Being used as dependencies of non-phony targets is the one thing phony
targets are not useful for. A phony dependency is always out of date
and will cause rerunning of the depending target.
(I am pretty sure you knew that, and I am just misparsing.)
I do not know what is wrong with having patch a phony target, though,
phony target are fine for direct invocation (debian/rules patch) and
that seems to be whole point of the respective entry in policy.
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'