Comment # 28 on bug 1051465 from Thomas Blume

(In reply to Franck Bui from comment #27)
> (In reply to Thomas Blume from comment #26)
> > Upstream seems to prefer less string mangling in the rules and to favour
> > using shell scripts instead (see comment#22).
> > I would follow them in this case.
> 
> I'm not sure upstream claims that but I really prefer have the oneline shell
> command embedded in the rule file. It doesn't really make sense to carry a
> shell script that has a single command.

Ok, so I will try to make this work without a shell script.
Let's see if I can find a way.

> Currently upstream rule file is named 60-xxx and ours is 61-xxx, so that
> should be ok.

Ok, so I will rely on this.

> Well if upstream doesn't set them we shouldn't either and if they set it
> then we can reuse them without doing any modifications.

Agreed