Colin Watson wrote: > * While it's true that make is largely delegating responsibility to > another program here, it's a common program used by many packages, > and so serves to consolidate a lot of boring common code which is a > fairly standard software virtue. I'd be hard-pressed to codify > this, but that does seem different in kind from forking a secondary > rules implementation local to a single source package simply for the > purpose of switching language.
If it helps, while I used to agree with Josip, I changed my mind, and dh
is actually what changed it. While dh subverts policy to a certian
extent, policy required it be used in the context of a makefile, and
this led to it using the makefile for configuration via override
targets, which was the single most important development in dh's evolution.
If debian/rules had not remained a makefile, that would not have been
possible, and dh would have a more complex and less flexible configuration.
Since dh is a common idiom, it's not particularly confusing to do this, now:
#!/usr/bin/make -f
%:
debian/myscript $@
Which is probably the simplest way to bring leave into policy compliance.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
