On Sat, Mar 21, 1998 at 06:09:50PM +0100, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > The reason is that inside of debian/rules a stamp-file is used
> > to indicate that the build process was successful. Unfortunately
> > this stamp-file is called 'build' - similar to the target I have
> > to use. As there are normaly no depends on the build target
> > make will refuse to run the build stage.
>
> But... isn't that what the 'build' stamp is _for_?
> It makes sure that if you do "debian/rules build" again, nothing happens.
But this time - as two .c files were modified and the package needed
to be rebuild with debian's options - this is the wrong behaviour.
> The stamp is removed by "debian/rules clean", thus ensuring that the
> package is re-built the next time build is run.
There is no need to clean and re-build the whole thing only because
two .c files have changed.
> Building a package without doing a clean first is IMHO broken. The
> proper sequence is the one used by dpkg-buildpackage:
> 1. clean
> 2. create source package
> 3. build
> 4. create binary package(s)
I didn't speak about dpkg-buildpackage or creating binary packages.
> With any other sequence you cannot guarantee that the source package
> you made will actually build the binary package.
It's a waste of time and cpu cycles if one needs to make a clean
everytime before a build. I agree that it's needed before the
build before a binary, but that's not the case here.
> > I'd like to make it policy that the stamp-file is NOT called
> > 'build' but something else, I still use stamp-build like in
> > the early days - the name is intentional.
>
> What does stamp-build do?
It shows that make -f debian/rules build has run successfully.
The binary target may be issued.
Regards,
Joey
--
/ Martin Schulze * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 26129 Oldenburg /
/ http://home.pages.de/~joey/
/ VFS: no free i-nodes, contact Linus -- finlandia, Feb '94 /
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
