[Build-common-hackers] Proposals for multi-build

Jeff Bailey jbailey@nisa.net
27 Jul 2003 18:15:47 -0400

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2003-07-27 at 17:44, Colin Walters wrote:

> > If packages can't do that, I guess they could post-install-hook to mv
> > the install directory out of the way.  I think that's only in the
> > ugliest of cases, though.

> This'll probably happen though :/  There are a lot of packages with
> sucky build systems...

Blech.  Well hopefully the set of packages that both need multibuild and
and have bad build environments is small. =3D(

> > A post-install hook of some sort should solve this problem, where they
> > just force a make clean to be run.  But that does mean those targets
> > won't have a sane 'build' target.  I don't think it's possible for them
> > to, though.

> Their build target will also have to install then, right?

Nope.  If I remember right (I don't have my chart handy) binary-foo
calls install/PACKAGE so it can happen in all the usual places.  Because
we define the rules /after/ the cdbs pieces are included, anything that
they put in their install/PACKAGE rules will get done last.  (removing
the need for a post-install-hook now that I think about it)...

Breathe into my hands, I'll cup them like a glass to drink from...
 - Tattle Tale

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)