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

Re: the 'build' debian/rules target



On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:55:09PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 08:57:21AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > Also, I find 'debian/rules build' a useful finger macro for when I just
> > want to debug something small in a package and don't want to build the
> > actual binary package
> 
> That's great for a small package which can actually run in place, but
> many packages need, e.g., to find support files at their proper
> hard-coded locations or they won't work.

Usually either an environment variable ( la groff, which I'm rather
familiar with) or some minor build system hack is quite enough to deal
with that. It's rarely difficult.

> > I would be very disappointed if this no longer worked consistently.
> 
> I hate to break it to you, but this already doesn't work consistently. :)

Consistently enough IME. I do this a lot.

> > This confuses me. The build target makes perfect sense here; it just
> > builds two temporary trees.
> 
> But build is generally used as the equivalent of make, not make
> install.  But to create two trees, you need to do a make install
> (twice).

Eh? No you don't. I'm not talking about debian/tmp-a-likes, I'm talking
about trees in which you run make. Plenty of packages support that or
can easily be made to do so (if nothing else, they can always 'cp -a'
the build tree, although that's not optimal).

> I object to a proposal that will make my package buggy just to gain
> benefits that still won't exist for my package even if I *do* "fix"
> it.

What proposal? I'm objecting to a proposal that deletes the requirement
for the build target to exist. I suggest that it should do something,
and I'm fairly sure that if I could be bothered I could make it do
something useful for your packages, but I don't think the onus is on me
here.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]



Reply to: