On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:42:03 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Regardless, even requiring debian/rules to be a makefile doesn't > > actually do much, because someone could do something like: > > > .DEFAULT: > > debian/irule $@ > > > or whatever. > > I actually see this as a argument for not changing the rule, > since using a Makefile does not in any way add restrictions for the > developer. debian/rules has been a makefile forever, allowing it to be > anything else doesn't buy anything practical, just a little geek value > for useless packages like shoop.
I don't have a problem with requiring that debian/rules be a makefile; what I'm concerned about are any assumptions about what debian/rules actually contains besides it being a valid makefile. Don Armstrong -- Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities. -- W. Churchill http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
