On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:31:30PM -0500, David Welton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:23:50PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 11:39:05AM -0700, David N. Welton wrote: > > > > Joey Hess' debhelper scripts are a good API, maybe it would be > > > good to standardize on them to some degree. > > > No. > > I didn't say "make them THE standard"
What did you mean then? > I suggested that it may be a > good idea to have a more standard API to use in rules files, to avoid > too much diversity. The rule file API is simple. Anything Make takes, debian/rules takes, and the following targets are guaranteed to exist: build, binary-arch, binary-indep, binary, clean. I think that's a pretty good API, and forcing debhelper on everybody's throat will not touch this interface at all. > Currently, anarchy reigns within debian/rules, > and it's a pain to work with. Can you be more specific? > Do you have any constructive criticism, My constructive criticism is that you have not given any good reason for making everybody use debhelper. If you had, I might have considered reiterating the well-known old arguments against this idea. And you can still do it. > or a better alternative? Yes. Don't standardise on debhelper. Rather fix the specific problems you might have by amending policy to require certain things without locking everybody down to a particular helper package. Right now your concerns are vague and I'm not at all sure your proposed solution is a good solution. Besides, this all belongs in -policy, not -devel. -- %%% Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho % [EMAIL PROTECTED] % http://www.iki.fi/gaia/ %%% "" (John Cage)
