Hi,
>>"Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wichert> But Manoj said he would remove the non-policy bits from it, and this
Wichert> would clearly fall in that category imho.
I disagree.
Wichert> I'll make this a proposal then:
Wichert> As such I propose that t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) wrote on 01.03.01 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'll make this a proposal then:
>
> Section 5.2 of policy currently dictates that debian/rules has to be
> a makefile. While this is good practice, the only thing that is essential
> is that it is an executable
On Sat, Mar 03, 2001 at 12:38:33PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Wichert wrote:
> > > I highly object to complicant the interface to debian/rules.
> > Anthony wrote:
> > > But, uh, isn't that what you're doing?
> > No, because allowing non-makefile rules files wouldn't require any changes
> > to
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 06:18:31PM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Wichert wrote:
> > I highly object to complicant the interface to debian/rules.
> Anthony wrote:
> > But, uh, isn't that what you're doing?
> No, because allowing non-makefile rules files wouldn't require any changes
> to the interface
Julian wrote:
> > > debian/rules [variable=value ...] target [variable=value ...]
Actually, it's this:
debian/rules target [variable=value ...]
At least, that's how dpkg-buildpackage does it, the target is always the
first parameter.
Wichert wrote:
> I highly object to complicant the interface
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 02:38:41PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> > But, uh, isn't that what you're doing? debian/rules has been a makefile
> > forever, allowing it to be anything else doesn't buy anything practical,
> It buys us freedom and room to experiment an
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:46:39AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> retitle [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
> debian/rules
> thanks
>
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > See bug#72335 (accepted).
>
> How can this be accepted if there is no record of a second in the B
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> But, uh, isn't that what you're doing? debian/rules has been a makefile
> forever, allowing it to be anything else doesn't buy anything practical,
It buys us freedom and room to experiment and innovate.
Wichert.
--
__
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:48:49AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Simply not true. Read the source code for dpkg-buildpackage. I'm
> > objecting to this until we specify the following (growing) minimal
> > interface:
> >
> > debian/rules [variable=value ...]
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 11:48:49AM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Simply not true. Read the source code for dpkg-buildpackage. I'm
> > objecting to this until we specify the following (growing) minimal
> > interface:
> > debian/rules [variable=value ...] targ
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> retitle 72335 [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for
> debian/rules
Bug#72335: [ACCEPTED 31/10/2000] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets
for debian/rules
Changed Bug title.
> severity 72335 wishlist
Bug#72335: [PROPOSAL] O
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Simply not true. Read the source code for dpkg-buildpackage. I'm
> objecting to this until we specify the following (growing) minimal
> interface:
>
> debian/rules [variable=value ...] target [variable=value ...]
I highly object to complicant the interface to d
retitle [PROPOSAL] Optional build-arch and build-indep targets for debian/rules
thanks
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> See bug#72335 (accepted).
How can this be accepted if there is no record of a second in the BTS? There
are a
few `this is a good idea' remarks, but no official second (and no
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:43:28PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > Right. Give a policy diff which specifies *exactly* what interfaces
> > are required of debian/rules.
>
> I'll make some other changes as well. I notice the current policy
> documented is polut
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 05:20:47PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > debian/rules -q target
> >
> > exit status: 2 if target does not exist, !=2 otherwise
>
> This has *never* been required, was never documented anywhere, and
> is not needed at all.
See bug#7
On 20010301T174940+0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Right, and my argument is that that is wrong. If debian/rules is a
> makefile or not is an implementation detail and should not be specified
> in policy. Policy should specify the interface to it.
I have no problems with this, actually I agree. I
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Right. Give a policy diff which specifies *exactly* what interfaces
> are required of debian/rules.
I'll make some other changes as well. I notice the current policy
documented is poluted with things like scripting advise, which
should be in a seperate document.
Previously Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> Also the debian/rules VAR=VALUE ... syntax is used by dpkg-buildpackage.
Thanks for reminding me, I'll change that to use environment variables
instead.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninte
Previously Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> That is false. Currently policy defines the interface of a debian/rules
> and even some of its behaviour by saying that it is a Makefile.
Right, and my argument is that that is wrong. If debian/rules is a
makefile or not is an implementation detail and s
On 20010301T172047+0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > debian/rules -q target
> >
> > exit status: 2 if target does not exist, !=2 otherwise
>
> This has *never* been required, was never documented anywhere, and
> is not needed at all.
It is part of an accepted
On 20010301T152221+0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I'll make this a proposal then:
>
> Section 5.2 of policy currently dictates that debian/rules has to be
> a makefile. While this is good practice, the only thing that is essential
> is that it is an executable that will respond to the build
On 20010301T155542+, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> In particular, the following should be minimally required:
>
> debian/rules required-target
>
> exit status: 0 if success, non-zero otherwise
>
> debian/rules -q target
>
> exit status: 2 if target does not exist, !=2 otherwise
Also the debia
Previously Julian Gilbey wrote:
> debian/rules -q target
>
> exit status: 2 if target does not exist, !=2 otherwise
This has *never* been required, was never documented anywhere, and
is not needed at all.
Wichert.
--
/ Gene
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 03:22:21PM +0100, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> I'll make this a proposal then:
>
> Section 5.2 of policy currently dictates that debian/rules has to be
> a makefile. While this is good practice, the only thing that is essential
> is that it is an executable that will res
Package: debian-policy
Previously Anthony Towns wrote:
> It'll have happened during Manoj's incorporation of the packaging-manual
> into policy. See 72949. You'll notice you seconded it... :)
But Manoj said he would remove the non-policy bits from it, and this
would clearly fall in that category
25 matches
Mail list logo
