make or $(MAKE) ?
Dear all, As one of the program I package was recently automakified, I had to change debian/rules to deal with this. While comparing with other packages, I realised that often $(MAKE) is used instead of make in debian/rules. In case of trivial packages which do not seem to expect something fancy from the enviroment, are both commands equivalent ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make or $(MAKE) ?
Charles Plessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As one of the program I package was recently automakified, I had to change debian/rules to deal with this. While comparing with other packages, I realised that often $(MAKE) is used instead of make in debian/rules. In case of trivial packages which do not seem to expect something fancy from the enviroment, are both commands equivalent ? I think $(MAKE) is useful when your make binary is called gmake, for instance. This shouldn't be the case on Debian, but I think it's a good habit to take. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make or $(MAKE) ?
On Saturday 07 April 2007 13:36, Charles Plessy wrote: As one of the program I package was recently automakified, I had to change debian/rules to deal with this. While comparing with other packages, I realised that often $(MAKE) is used instead of make in debian/rules. In case of trivial packages which do not seem to expect something fancy from the enviroment, are both commands equivalent ? Reading the documentation, the difference between make and $(MAKE), apart from the obvious difference when $(MAKE) is set to something other than make, is that using $(MAKE) ensures that the --touch, --just-print, and --question options work as you'd want them to, namely by recursively calling $(MAKE) despite the fact that those options mean that no commands actually be executed. Thus, in normal build invocations the difference doesn't matter, but it helps with some manual uses. -- Magnus Holmgren[EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks) pgpEjTBAWJpNz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: make or $(MAKE) ?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Charles Plessy wrote: As one of the program I package was recently automakified, I had to change debian/rules to deal with this. While comparing with other packages, I realised that often $(MAKE) is used instead of make in debian/rules. In case of trivial packages which do not seem to expect something fancy from the enviroment, are both commands equivalent ? To stay on the safe side, you should use $(MAKE); see http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#MAKE-Variable Bye, - -- cc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGF4gYGJRwVVqzMkMRAhJhAJ9LVlCqh4KY624skCGXmyBs2a7/PACeMV70 BuAZZmez8+KCG46Rtw5YrAM= =84BX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: make or $(MAKE) ?
Le Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 02:01:28PM +0200, Székelyi Szabolcs a écrit : To stay on the safe side, you should use $(MAKE); see http://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/make.html#MAKE-Variable Thanks to everybody who answered. I have corrected my debian/rules file to use $(Make). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy http://charles.plessy.org Wako, Saitama, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hunting for Debian developer
Hi everyone, *Wanted* Linux Developer Linux developer wanted in Unique United Oy/Ltd. The project involves software development for Nokia Internet tablet (like Nokia 770 and Nokia 800) device. Programming competencies of interest: - Linux (Debian) programming - GTK - MAEMO platform - porting applications to MAEMO - multimedia skills - real-time communication programming - UI design and implementation Unique United Oy is a small but fast growing Finnish IT company. Creativity, innovation and team work are highly valued qualities. If you are interested in the position and think you have enough skills please contact us before 30th April. Thank you for your attention and we expect your early reply! best regards, John - Unique United Oy/Ltd. Tekniikantie 21 FI-02150 Espoo Finland Tel:+358103466443 Mobile:+358505362186 http://www.uu.fi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: newlisp
* Dmitry Chernyak [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070406 07:06]: newLISP community is looking for a sponsor for package newlisp. [...] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/n/newlisp/newlisp_9.1.1-2.dsc [...] I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Some problems (haven't looked deeper yet): - debian/copyright is incomplete. - it misses the license for the documentation. (The status of the manpages might be a bit problemematic, as they could be documentation and thus according to README would be GNU FDL, but they include no copy of the license). (FDL is a ugly license anyway, please ask upstream to at least dual-license GPL/GFDL it, then everything should be fine) - it misses at least that some code has different authors and licenses (at least README lists quite a few, haven't looked at the other sources yet) - does not honor DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt - Some minus signs are not escaped in the manpage (run with lintian -I to catch those) - no debian/menu file (both newlisp and newlisp-tk should be in there) - newlist-tk should not call mozilla but sensible-browser (so that users can specify BROWSER environment variable, and otherwise the x-www-browser alternative is used). Minor nitpicking: - http://newlisp.org from debian/copyright is no URL without a / at the end. Putting the website where the link for the .tar.gz is would also be nice, otherwise: - a debian/watch would be nice (makes it also more easy to download the original source to compare it) - debian/rules is a bit messy, with all the add here comments and so on. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: newlisp
Scribit Bernhard R. Link dies 07/04/2007 hora 16:32: - http://newlisp.org from debian/copyright is no URL without a / at the end According to RFC 2396, a generic URI without a path component is a valid one (section 3). It is very uncommon, though. Uncommonly, Pierre -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A signature.asc Description: Digital signature
