[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [vile] Debian package?

From: Thomas Dickey
Subject: Re: [vile] Debian package?
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:18:03 -0400 (EDT)

On Mon, 22 Aug 2011, Brendan O'Dea wrote:

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

I didn't see that nuance.  I did try your patch on my local machine,
and while my existing rules-file did work, I ran into problems with
the change you made - some issue with an unexpected parenthesis "("
when it recurs into the filters subdirectory.  That happens with at
least two versions of Debian (testing and 5.0).

So... I'm looking for more information, to see where it breaks.
Perhaps it's something obscure, such as my environment settings
making it work.

Thomas E. Dickey

reply via email to

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