Package: cdbs
Version: 0.4.52
Severity: minor
Dear CDBS-Hackers,
I'd like to know if there is a consensus (i.e. a rule-of-thumb)
concerning the order in which the CDBS class and rules files have to
be included in debian/rules? -- I am thinking about a statement like
"include rules first, then classes"?
If there is such a consensus, what is the recommended order of e.g.
rules files among each other in debian/rules? -- I am thinking about a
statement like "do allways include debhelper.mk before patchsys-quilt.mk".
Please document the recommended order of the CDBS rules and class
makefile fragments somewhere, e.g. in a README file!
My personal idea to deal with this issue is to enumerate the files in
their respective directories, e.g. (I don't know if the order is
right, it's just a draft example):
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/01-buildcore.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/00-buildvars.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/10-debhelper.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/20-dpatch.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/20-simple-patchsys.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/30-tarball.mk
/usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/30-utils.mk
respecting the order in which they are supposed to be included in
debian/rules. To preserve backwards compatiblity, those enumerated
files could be softlinked to the old file names.
The rationale for my request is that today I had to find out that I
need to include patchsys.quilt.mk *after* autotools.mk if one of my
patches affects to build system to run properly (e.g. to make 'make
distclean' work again). This behaviour is documented nowhere -- at
least I haven't found anything in the cdbs documentation.
Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Fabian
--
Dipl.-Phys. Fabian Greffrath
Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Lehrstuhl für Energieanlagen und Energieprozesstechnik (LEAT)
Universitätsstr. 150, IB 3/134
D-44780 Bochum
Telefon: +49 (0)234 / 32-26334
Fax: +49 (0)234 / 32-14227
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
