[ I cced [EMAIL PROTECTED] in my initial mail in order to have a paragraph about debian-cd in DWN next week - no need to continue CCing them even if my Mail-Followup-To included them ] Le Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 03:59:52PM +0100, Richard Atterer écrivait: > I think the idea of using a Makefile at all wasn't that good in retrospect.
In some aspects it was interesting, I liked to be able to avoid redoing stuff which were already done when I corrected something by hand. But that's it. > Maybe it would be nicer to use "run-parts": A top-level script executes > everything in a "stages" directory in alphabetical order. The individual > stages could then have further directories of their own where > substage-scripts for that stage of the process are stored. This would get > rid of all that "hook" ugliness... > > There could be different top-level "stages" directories for the different > CD flavours, with symlinks to scripts which are identical between any two > of them. This has the advantage that you can fork code any time; instead of > linking from the sarge version to the woody version, just make a copy of > the script, then make changes/hacks which are woody-only. > > Each top-level "stages" dir could also come with configuration files > preconfigured for that particular CD flavour. > > Well, something like that... I don't know if the above would work. :) It's exactly something like that that I had in mind when I spoke of "profile" in my initial mail. And I have the same problem than you, it looks like nice but I didn't took the time to see it it fits as well as I hope. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com Earn money with free software: http://www.geniustrader.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]