Re: Objection to change made in debian policy
First of all, Wichert, you set "Mail-Followup-To" to
"debian-policy@lists.debian.org, submit@bugs.debian.org". I don't
think that followups to submit@b.d.o are appropriate. (I'm not even
sure that a CC to the policy list was necessary, since bugs against
policy seem to automatically go to the policy list.)
On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 08:48:41PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Personally I increasingly feel that make is not the right format for
> debian/rules.
Without disagreeing with your proposal, I'd like to point out that
there seems to be a fairly trivial workaround:
#! /usr/bin/make -f
build:
debian/myrules build
binary-arch:
debian/myrules binary-arch
binary-indep:
debian/myrules binary-indep
binary:
debian/myrules binary
clean:
debian/myrules clean
Then debian/myrules could be any sort of script you want. It could
even be a binary, built on the fly, if you really wanted to get
tricky.
Granted, it's a bit redundant and silly, but it's policy-compliant and
should provide the flexibility you need, at least from now till
whenever policy becomes unfrozen again. And frankly, if there were
some packages using this silly workaround, I'd be that much more
likely to support a proposal to modify policy to make it unnecessary.
(Not that I oppose the proposal in the slightest.)
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: