Russ Allbery wrote: > David Paleino <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:24:08 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Hi Russ > >>> You add: > >>> include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make > >>> to debian/rules and then make your first target (usually configure, >>> build, configure-stamp, build-stamp, or something like that) depend on >>> $(QUILT_STAMPFN) and your clean target depend on unpatch. That handles >>> applying and removing the patches during the build. >> This might be a little OT, but, yes, even if I've always used >> $(QUILT_STAMPFN), but also "patch" works. Why do we use that $() thing? > > Because patch is a phony target which is therefore always out of date, and > therefore anything that depends on patch will be triggered to run every > time that you run debian/rules. Depending on patch instead of > $(QUILT_STAMPFN) can therefore cause odd behavior like running configure > twice or make twice, depending on the rest of debian/rules. > Could you give a real-world example when that can happen. I've always used the patch target (instead of $(QUILT_STAMPFN)) in my debian/rules files and so far haven't encountered any issues. Given that patch depends on $(QUILT_STAMPFN) I can't imagine a scenario where I would run into problems using the patch target. Cheers, Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
Description: OpenPGP digital signature