Re: first batch of restructuring in the policy manual
>> On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 23:08:21 +0100,
>> Josip Rodin <joy@srce.hr> said:
> On that note, by proofreading the debian/rules sections I
> determined that the last restructuring caused bug #88029. Not that
> there was anything wrong with the method used[1], it merely made me
> lament the fact I didn't proofread that one back then, and made me
> be more careful about the may-should-must phrasing now.
> [1] I saw clear pattern in how the various "is" and "should
> usually" terms were converted into "should" and "must". The
> conversions were consistent, however, IWJ wasn't necessarily
> consistent in the original text because the original text was never
> scrutinized in this manner, to my knowledge. This, combined with
> the fact the rules file interface was obviously made in a way a
> that doesn't really rely on make's features, has convinced me even
> further that the "must" rule (which I objected to in #88029) is
> improper. :)
I dunno. Going back over the old bug, I see there was little
consensus, with a number of arguments being extended to keep make
behaviour (make CFLAGS=vlah build, ./debian/rules -n -p -d, etc);
I'll need to read through again. So far, I think I differ on this
issue.
Of course, the prospect of writing a rules file as a perl
script, or as an xslt transform, is intriguing. Or even a rules file
written in Scheme.
manoj
--
My weight is perfect for my height -- which varies.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: