On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 03:04:30PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> Sorry, missed your message in the thread:
No problem, thanks for replying.
> > > build-%:
> > > PYTHON=`which python$*` ./configure
> > I guess this should have been "`which $*` ./configure", right? If so,
> > read on.
>
> Nope, this is correct, "pyversions -vr debian/control" gives you "2.4
> 2.5", not "python2.4 python2.5". (In practice, I don't think there are
Yeah, but personally I wouldn't call Makefile targets as such, I would
rather prefer to $(foreach ...) on the output of "pyversions -vr ..."
(which IIRC was not in your posted example FWIW) in order to replace the
bare version names with some more meaningful target names as
"build-python2.4" or something such.
> I wouldn't lose anything; I don't think I would gain anything either;
> the point was that it isn't a good idea to call make as a method to
> check whether I implemented the build-arch concept. In fact, I already
Well, if the example is the one you gave, I still think that it is the
example itself which should be improved rather than took as a proof of
concept that build-arch can't be detected that way. How many examples
are around there like yours? I think they should be fixed nevertheless,
and I don't even think there are many ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature