Re: the 'build' debian/rules target
On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 12:48:34AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> 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).
Hmm, yeah, I could do that. It would be a bit ugly and awkward, and
I'd rather not. But you're right, it would work.
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 12:55:09PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > 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.
Oh, ok, I thought you were making a counter-proposal. Guess I was
just being paranoid, sorry about that. I'll stay neutral on the
original proposal. I don't see the benefit of an empty build target
in ted's rules, but I don't see any harm either.
> 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.
With your suggestion above, I'm sure I could make it do something too.
However,
* it would require a measurable amount of work,
* the cp -a would noticably slow down the build, and
* your "finger macro" *still* wouldn't work - you'd have to edit the
rules file or set some variables or something to tell ted where to
find its support files. At which point, it's probably easier to type
in the _one_ command needed to build a debuggable version of ted.[1]
_Especially_ since you probably don't need or want to build both
flavors of ted just to debug!
[1] it's a long command, but you can cut-and-paste from the rules
file, substituting local directories as needed.
So, my cost-benefit analysis says that making ted's build target do
something is probably not worth it. So even if you did bother to do
the work for me, I would probably reject the change, unless you were
*really* persuasive. So it's probably a good thing that you can't be
bothered. :)
cheers
--
Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra- osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Reply to: