[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

3-line debian/rules [was: Re: r33723 - /trunk/libtest-portability-files-perl/debian/changelog]

-=| gregor herrmann, Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 01:43:08AM +0200 |=-
> The "long" version was the default one (also produced by
> dh-make-perl) at least until Damyan started to experiment with the
> three-line version today in the afternoon. We've talked a bit about
> about pros and cons on IRC (have I already said that I like commit
> messages on IRC :)), and I agree that we should probably try to find
> a consensus by discussing here in the -list.
> > IMHO both the minimal notation and the override rules greatly help
> > the rules file readability - we're left with just what is *really*
> > needed there.
> For me the longer version is more readable and easier to extend
> (adding quilt fragements or some custom commands) because the
> skeleton is already spelled out; but that may of course also be
> because I've seen it a few hundred times in the last ~10 months.

here's the default rules that can build most of the packages:
#!/usr/bin/make -f
        dh $@

Hardly can get easier than that :) If course some details are 
controlled by files under debian/ as it is now.

Adding quilt:
#!/usr/bin/make -f
include /usr/share/quilt/quilt.make
        dh $@

override_dh_auto_configure: $(QUILT_STAMPFN)

override_dh_auto_clean: unpatch

I think it is not that hard. Different -- yes, but nothing more.

The text one needs to add is more, compared to the case with 
semi-short rules. However, I find the additions natural -- I only 
looked in the manpage once (for the configure target).

I was thinking of using the plugin features of DH7 (--with quilt?) but 
haven't got the time to investigate further.

> > I'm just fine with using the "default" debian/rules file, with
> > the important targets spelled out and the *-stamp files touched;
> If we switch to the short version that's also fine for me, and my eyes
> will get used to it :)
> I'd just prefer to have one "default" version because it makes
> reviewing and upgrading packages easier.

OK, I surely don't want to /force/ anybody to use the even shorter 
debian/rules. Placing additional burden to the most (or only) active 
sponsor in the group would be counter-productive :)

I'd encourage trying it. Maybe it'll work :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: