Re: A standard patch rule for our rules

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> writes:

> Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:43:37PM +0200, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> > "patch" indeded is the standard way nowadays. See policy 4.9.
> 
> Unfortunately, it seems that with quilt, it is better ot use
> $(QUILT_STAMPFN) in order to avoid a target to become phony.

What's wrong with having a phony target? We already have many of them,
and a standard way of dealing with them: as dependencies of the ‘.PHONY’
target.

It seems to me that the whole point of adding ‘patch’ as a (phony)
target is to allow a dependency on that target, instead of something
patch-system-specific. What is your reasoning for wanting to diverge
from that?

-- 
 \       “Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe |
  `\   or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” —Arthur C. Clarke, |
_o__)                                                             1999 |
Ben Finney