Mailing-List: contact bigtop-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: bigtop-dev@incubator.apache.org
Message-ID: <4E73B250.4000002@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:32:16 -0700
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bruno_Mah=E9?= <bmahe@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110906 Thunderbird/6.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bigtop-dev@incubator.apache.org
CC: Andrew Bayer <andrew.bayer@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Abstracting the build logic in rules/spec files
References: 
 <CAPbPdOaGocv1WtgTEQ9cuzp-0Ays1hWo_sF4xJT8LbZzqR2vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAPbPdOaGocv1WtgTEQ9cuzp-0Ays1hWo_sF4xJT8LbZzqR2vQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 09/16/2011 01:12 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote:
> So we already abstract away copying the bits into place for the packages via
> bigtop-packages/src/common/foo/install_foo.sh. But we're not as of yet
> abstracting the build logic - as a result, we're duplicating the build calls
> in both the Debian rules files and the RPM spec files. I don't like
> duplication. =) So I'd like to propose moving the build logic for the
> components into shell scripts akin to the install_foo.sh scripts, in the
> common area, which would then be called in the rules/specs. Does this sound
> reasonable to everyone?
>
> A.
>

It works for me.
Generalizing a template would also be most helpful.