Bug#88029: allow rules file to be non-makefile
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 12:33:49AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Makefiles are already arbitrary code. You can write a makefile rules file
> > that would use shoop stuff -- which would be perfectly conformant, but would
> > that make it any easier to edit (for the uninitiated)?
>
> But one is much less likely to do that: there may be the odd line of
> code in shoop, but to actually warp the makefile into shoop would seem
> like hard work.
Considering that make just runs the commands through shell, I wouldn't bet
on it...
> > Imagine a rules file like this:
> > [...]
> > How is that hard to NMU? Unless of course the developer in question doesn't
> > know a thing about shell scripting. :|
>
> Very nice, but why? What's the point of copying a standard example
> makefile and turning it into a shell script?
Ask the opposite question -- what's the point of taking a sequence of
commands and turning it into a makefile? Those external commands don't
depend on their caller being a makefile. In fact, they could care less[1]
what calls them.
This is the point I'm trying to prove. The specific requirement for the
rules file to be a makefile is too strict and is not necessary.
> If someone is going to go to the effort of writing rules in a system other
> than make, they're likely to want to do something a bit bizarre, and
> that's where things get hairy.
Bizarre? The next upload of maildrop will have debian/rules written in plain
old shell, check it out, I don't think you'll see anything odd in there.
(Feel free to file as many RC bugs you want ;)
[1] aside from the fact they're computer programs and inherently have no
ability to care :)
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: