Am 11.05.2010 10:41, schrieb Cleto Martin Angelina:
The bug #539568 is an ITP for a C++ sockets library. The ITP was
created on Augus'09. I'm interested in this package too, and I wrote
an email to the bug author and I've received that his email does not
exists. In this cases, what should be
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
the special cases are needed? debian/rules is a specific interface for
Debian building, why are you using that same interface for other
purposes?
It's just because we believe this is the easiest to use and easiest to
maintain way to do this:
Build a standard vdr-plugin-*
Michael Tautschnig schrieb:
I think Manoj already explained quite well why policy is that specific about a
single line.
And I explaind why the policy is over specific in this case :-)
The modified shebang line didn't had any drawback in the past and
wouldn't have any drawback in the future.
Manoj Srivastava schrieb:
1. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel make -f debian/rules build
2. make -f debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
3. SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel ./debian/rules build
4. ./debian/rules SPECIAL_VDR_SUFFIX=devel build
Giving you differing results is confusing enough to
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
Adhering to a standard actually decreases complexity. What may seem elegant
at
first makes it a lot harder for other people to step in. For example, the
VDR-solution IMHO doesn't decrease complexity, it merely hides it.
Yes, it indeed hides some complexity. But it
Michael Tautschnig schrieb:
In an earlier post you mentioned a pbuilder build process: If that is what you
are using, why not go for pbuilder hooks?
This would surely be possible, but then the users compiling their own
packages will complain :-)
@all:
Thanks for your technical suggestions!
Philipp Kern wrote:
I didn't say that, right? Please don't lay words into my mouth. I said
here to specify the concrete case of policy describing the first n bytes
of debian/rules despite the interface being completely in accordance with
the normal procedures (i.e. being a Makefile and even
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If I ahve the magic variables set, and call it as
% make -f ./debian/rules,
I get the standard behaviour. If I turn around and call it as
% ./debian/rules,
I get totally different behaviour.
True but if you DON'T set the magic variable, you get
Hello!
Debian Policy 4.9 says about debian/rules:
It must start with the line #!/usr/bin/make -f, so that it can be
invoked by saying its name rather than invoking make explicitly.
In the VDR and VDR plugin packages, we use something like this:
/bin/sh debian/make-special-vdr.sh
Julien Cristau schrieb:
asks for a password.
Sorry, wrong link:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-vdr-dvb/vdr/vdr/trunk/debian/make-special-vdr.sh
also nothing in what you said explains why you
can't do what you want using a makefile.
Because make-special-vdr.sh needs to modify
Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Why not so it the other way round, i.e. start two different scripts (or
the same script with different parameters) from a debian/rules Makefile
depending on the environment variable?
Might be possible, but it would require major changes to debian/rules, but
our goal is
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
This is what the make directive 'include' is all
about. Conditionally, include fileA or fileB. Each file is all
uncontaminated now.
This is not a technical shortcoming of using Makefiles.
You're right. What we do might be possible from within the
Grammostola Rosea wrote:
How should I do it? I've seen a lot of different tools/ways on the
web... please give me some clear information and good references.
Check out cowbuilder. The follwing references should get you going:
http://wiki.debian.org/cowbuilder
Let me express my appreciation and gratitude for Debian.
Reading debian-devel during the last weeks, I had the same feeling that
some positive counterpart to the recent discussions is needed to somehow
keep the balance. I intended to post the top 5 reasons, why I love
Debian, but you were faster
14 matches
Mail list logo
