On Tue, 01 Sep 2009, Christian Perrier wrote: > I'm not a deep make wizard, but the problem seems fairly simple. I'd > appreciate if you had a look at it, Raphaël, still.
Looks mostly fine, some comments: > -build: build-stamp > +build: patch build-stamp In many cases, people use $(QUILT_STAMPFN) instead of patch (to avoid running the target for nothing IIRC). > -clean: > +clean: clean-patched unpatch > + > +clean-patched: Here it depends on whether you want to call clean with patches applied or not. When it doesn't matter, people usually just put unpatch in the dependency of clean without separating the rules in clean-patched. > dh_testdir > dh_testroot > rm -f build-stamp > @@ -75,4 +80,4 @@ > dh_builddeb > > binary: binary-indep binary-arch > -.PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install > +.PHONY: build clean binary-indep binary-arch binary install patch unpatch clean-patched would be phony too if you keep it Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
