On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:40:03 -0600, Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:03:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> We just disallow some usage that has been explicitley stated to
>> work. A gratuitous change, with no compelling use cases, or even a
>> ration
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:04:35AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> debian/rules should be portable enough to work with any implementation
> of make [1]. That's the interface. If I have an implmentation that I know
> supports include files, I should be able to ask *my* implementation of
> make to in
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:04:35AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "excutable makefile", ok, this is the point of contempt.
>
> If we're actually regarding each other's views with contempt, then
> there's not much point in continuing the disc
Scripsit "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you want to tie debian/rules to GNU make, then modify policy to
> say so: a GNU Makefile. Arguments regarding the nature of Debian's
> /usr/bin/make are not strong enough, not as a definition for an
> interface.
debian/rules should be p
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:03:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> We just disallow some usage that has been explicitley stated to
> work. A gratuitous change, with no compelling use cases, or even a
> rationale beyond "why not?", hopefully shall not be accepted.
You keep on referencin
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 01:37:36AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:03:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >> If you do not stick to the documented interfaces, you lose the
> > >> ability in my eyes to express outrage when the interfaces you use
> > >> change.
> >
> > > E
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:01:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> the fact is that this has been accepted practice as long as there has
> been a rules file, and has been documented as being a Makefile for some
> time now.
>
> Given the lack of a compelling technical reason to change,
>
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:13:14PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I have made a few (including ./debian/rules in an superset
> debugging makefile, passing variables in MAKEFLAGS, using -j, -n, -p
> and other make arguments to arrive at similar invocations, using
> VPATH's et all to tempo
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:03:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If you do not stick to the documented interfaces, you lose the
> >> ability in my eyes to express outrage when the interfaces you use
> >> change.
>
> > Except one important difference -- in this case, NOTHING CHANGES in
> > th
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:26:45 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:35:04AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 03:58:19PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>> > I've yet to see a technical argument for allowing debian/rules to
>> > be a non-ma
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:58:55 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:54:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It is documented to be a Makefile. That _is_ the interface
>> definition.
> Actually, we don't know that.
We don't?
> The original documentat
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:00:17 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 07:55:00PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
>> If you do not stick to the documented interfaces, you lose the
>> ability in my eyes to express outrage when the interfaces you use
>> change.
> Except one
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:35:04AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 03:58:19PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > I've yet to see a technical argument for allowing debian/rules to be a
> > non-makefile.
>
> I've yet to see a technical argument for disallowing debian/rules from be
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:28:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> We might be more successful in resolving the issue if some people stopped
> thinking of it as an ad hominem flamewar. :p
Especially since Wichert don't bother playing :(
> > > The interface to the rules file is defined well enough,
>
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 01:06:30AM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Summary of the auction so far:
>
> Steve bet on Manoj and Josip on Wichert.
>
> Deuce.
We might be more successful in resolving the issue if some people stopped
thinking of it as an ad hominem flamewar. :p
> > The interface to th
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 12:35:04AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 03:58:19PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
Summary of the auction so far:
Steve bet on Manoj and Josip on Wichert.
Deuce.
> The interface to the rules file is defined well enough, there's absolutely
> nothing wr
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 03:58:19PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> I've yet to see a technical argument for allowing debian/rules to be a
> non-makefile.
I've yet to see a technical argument for disallowing debian/rules from being
a non-makefile.
See, those two statements make the same amount of
On 19-Oct-03, 13:03 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:50:41AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > > But it's a historic injustice,
> >
> > Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
> > The Man is keeping me down!
> > Up with perl, down with make!
> > Power to the pe
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:50:41AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > But it's a historic injustice,
>
> Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
> The Man is keeping me down!
> Up with perl, down with make!
> Power to the people!
We share an enthusiasm for overloaded phrases, I see :)
but a small verbal
On 19-Oct-03, 04:20 (CDT), Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it's a historic injustice,
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
The Man is keeping me down!
Up with perl, down with make!
Power to the people!
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 01:20:26PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I'd be interested to see doogie's rationale, but it's amusing enough as it
> stands, because the policy still says:
>
> If one or both of the targets `build-arch' and `build-indep' are
> not provided, then invoking
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > this-and-that function of Make" (so far I remember only two of those, when
> > the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS env. variable was added and when testing for existence
> > of build-arch was added).
>
> ... which was a fiasco. Doogie finally i
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 11:20:33AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> this-and-that function of Make" (so far I remember only two of those, when
> the DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS env. variable was added and when testing for existence
> of build-arch was added).
... which was a fiasco. Doogie finally implemented th
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 04:37:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 88029
>
> yeah well. That is not all the dfiscussion there was on it. In
> March 2001, we had more than those comments on it:
Nah, I saw that one as well, and I'm fairly sure I answered it back then.
If not, please let m
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 15:02:10 +0200, Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 88029
yeah well. That is not all the dfiscussion there was on it. In
March 2001, we had more than those comments on it:
==
If people
25 matches
Mail list logo
