Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>I think your assumptions are probably safe, in general, and lead to a
>>nice understandable structure in mknetrel's code. I can double tar if
>>I need to.
>>
>
> I was just thinking: another reason for choosing this different
> install tree thing was, to avoid the kind of homebrew things you see
> in debian/rules. But I forgot about how rpm goes about it: naming
> packages, and listing file globs; and the rest is automagically.
>
> Maybe it would be a better to replace the possibly-overly-generic-
> but-maybe-impractical <symbolic-subpackage>_split () functions, by
> <symbolic-subpackage>_glob () functions, eg:
>
> doc_glob () {
> echo "/usr/doc /usr/info"
> }
>
> These could of course also have a default implementation, and
> mknetrel:domkdist () can handle these automagically.
Do what works. I think it's fine as you originally proposed. Mknetrel
is not supposed to handle all variations of the ways people want to
build and package things; it should impose 'the mknetrel way' -- as long
as the task can be actually be done within those constraints.
Trying to make the tool TOO flexible ends up making it unusable.
This ain't perl (TMTOWTDI). (oh, boy, NOW I've done it...)
--Chuck
