On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 13:37:25 +0100 Laurent Guignard <lguignard.debian@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I thought it was a cleaner method to test the file exists before > >> running a command on, but may be i am wrong ? > > > > The test is okay, but why do you invoke debian/rules? If you need > > config.status to be up to date, just make it a dependency of rule > > where you need it. > > The main difference i can see, is that someone that download the > source package could manualy run a ./configure with his own options > and generate his own Makefile that could be used after to generate a > specific package (may be with a special path...). > If i put a dependency on the install rule, this possibility disappear > and all dpkg-buildpackage will build the same package. That is the intention - new options should be set by changing debian/rules. If people want to build the upstream source with different options, they can use the .orig.tar.gz. > May be this freedom to the system administrator that build the package > hasn't to be there ? Don't call debian/rules - you probably don't want config.status at all, whether it is up to date or not. config.status is normally removed either by 'make distclean' or 'fakeroot debian/rules clean'. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgp43x41_ffXh.pgp
Description: PGP signature