On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:31:36 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2011, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > Thus my personal preference would be to provide something to cover > > those use cases. > > I attached a patch for this. I ended up diverging slightly on the > variable names to be more consistent.
Given that my remarks probably apply to most of the other make snippets and variables, you went ahead anyway, and I cannot be bothered to argue against this, I'll at least comment on the naming/implementation: > +# DEB_SOURCE_PACKAGE: the source package name Why DEB_SOURCE_PACKAGE instead of say, DEB_SOURCE? I guess it depends if we want to map to field names or to more descriptive (although probably redundant) variable names. > +# DEB_VERSION: the full version of the package > +# DEB_VERSION_NOREV: the package's version without the Debian revision > +# DEB_VERSION_NOEPOCH: the package's version without the Debian epoch > +# DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM: the package's upstream version These do not seem to have ended up being completely consistent, there's a mix of variables listing what's missing, and variables listing what's included. What about something like: DEB_VERSION DEB_VERSION_EPOCH_UPSTREAM DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM_REVISION DEB_VERSION_UPSTREAM instead? > +# DEB_DISTRIBUTION: the first distribution of the current entry in > debian/changelog Why only the first, what makes it special? If there's multiple filter can always be used. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110920042753.ga21...@gaara.hadrons.org
