Eddy Petrişor wrote: > On 6/25/06, Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> wrote: >> All this is quite a lot of automake patching and if you can get upstream >> onside it will be a lot easier. > > Running autotools in debian/rules ? I didn't say to do that. Patching the Makefiles used by autotools before cdbs runs was my point. > will bring you in a huge mess[1]. > Please DO NOT do that. OK, so maybe that method requires at least some upstream assistance - but I wasn't actually advocating running autotools in debian/rules. My point is that by tweaking the Makefiles and associated build scripts with patches, there would be no need for changes in debian/rules at all. Create patches for certain Makefiles and maybe configure, apply those using cdbs and then let cdbs make it's normal single pass. The simplest way is to get the CVS/SVN source, tweak the Makefile.am files, note the changes in the Makefile.in and create patches that allow the upstream source to build both binaries in a single pass. autotools are run (once) via the normal cdbs processes as before, but the instructions passed to the various autotools now include patches that allow the build to create both binaries from one source, with different CFLAGS (or any other setting) in a single pass by cdbs. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature