Generic build script instructions

[Charles Wilson]

Igor Pechtchanski wrote:

> P.S. FWIW, another idea I had, akin to Max's python approach, was to
> actually append a (wrapped) GBS patch to the GBS instead of changing the
> script directly, and have the GBS detect that fact and apply the patch to
> itself, then running the resulting script (piping it to an exec'ed shell).
> Opinions?

I don't really like this -- it's moving more to a "standard tool + 
external configury" model, like imake (or even rpm/deb).  While that's 
not a BAD model, as obviously so many tools use it, it's not what gbs 
was originally intended to do.

Now, a change in direction is fine, if you're SURE that you want to go 
in that direction.  But consider, if you really want a standard tool + 
external configury model, if gbs is really the proper framework.

I'd think that cgf's netrel (or several other build helpers mentioned on 
this list) would be a better fit for that model.  The extreme 
genericization(?) of gbs is only making the package more and more 
complicated -- and more daunting to a new porter just easing into cygwin 
maintainership.  It's no longer a simple, quick-n-dirty tool for making 
cygwin packages.

Even dpkg/rpm + an "unroller" that turns the .rpm/.deb into a .tar.gz, 
and pulls the trigger-scripts out and puts them into /etc/*/ 
appropriately, would be a better fit for the "standard tool + external 
configury" model than gbs, IMO.

--
Chuck