Ben Finney wrote:
[...]
> It seems to me that the whole point of adding ‘patch’ as a (phony)
> target is to allow a dependency on that target,
[...]
Hello,
Being used as dependencies of non-phony targets is the one thing phony
targets are not useful for. A phony dependency is always out of date
Ben Finney writes:
> Charles Plessy writes:
>> Unfortunately, it seems that with quilt, it is better ot use
>> $(QUILT_STAMPFN) in order to avoid a target to become phony.
> What's wrong with having a phony target? We already have many of them,
> and a standard way of dealing with them: as depe
Charles Plessy writes:
> Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:43:37PM +0200, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> > "patch" indeded is the standard way nowadays. See policy 4.9.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that with quilt, it is better ot use
> $(QUILT_STAMPFN) in order to avoid a target to become phony.
What's w
Le Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:43:37PM +0200, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> Rafael Almeida wrote:
> > A ``patch'' rule for debian/rules there should always be
> > for I'd like to easily apply patches created by me
> > Don't worry I don't think of anything too hard
> > a simple standarization will ease m
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:43:37PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Rafael Almeida wrote:
> > A ``patch'' rule for debian/rules there should always be
> > for I'd like to easily apply patches created by me
> > Don't worry I don't think of anything too hard
> > a simple standarization will ease my h
Rafael Almeida wrote:
> A ``patch'' rule for debian/rules there should always be
> for I'd like to easily apply patches created by me
> Don't worry I don't think of anything too hard
> a simple standarization will ease my heart
> Today ``debian/rules build'' is always a good match
> but there's n
Nice poem :)
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Rafael Almeida writes:
> A ``patch'' rule for debian/rules there should always be
> for I'd like to easily apply patches created by me
> Don't worry I don't think of anything too hard
> a simple standarization will ease my heart
>
> Today ``debian/rules build'' is always a good match
> but there'
A ``patch'' rule for debian/rules there should always be
for I'd like to easily apply patches created by me
Don't worry I don't think of anything too hard
a simple standarization will ease my heart
Today ``debian/rules build'' is always a good match
but there's no mandatory ``debian/rules patch''
9 matches
Mail list logo
