[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [vile] Debian package?

From: Brendan O'Dea
Subject: Re: [vile] Debian package?
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 17:24:16 +1000

On 22 August 2011 08:52, Thomas Dickey <address@hidden> wrote:
> hmm.  As far as I know, $(name) and ${name} should work equally well
> in makefiles.  The reason that I've been using ${name} is that the
> same token will also work in shell scripts, which makes it simple(r)
> to do substitutions with autoconf.  Is there some reason (other than
> perhaps style) with that in a dpkg script?

debian/rules is just a makefile, so yes, $(name) and ${name} are equivalent.

The change in to ${prefix} in that diff is quite incidental, I just
happened to notice that it was being used inconsistently.

I tend to use $(name) for makefile variables, since it makes it
clearer that make should be doing the expansion rather than the shell.
 This is a particularly awful example:

  xshell = x-terminal-emulator -e $$(prefix)/share/vile/

the value of prefix is being passed here through debian/rules (hence
$$), via a quoted argument in build-xvile-stamp to make it through the
shell invoking make on vile's makefile, where it should finally be


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]