Neil Williams dixit: >How is it helpful if you *and only you* know what is going on?
It’s better when the responsible person and noone else knows what’s going on than when the responsible person doesn’t know what’s going on. >> bug in fakeroot precisely *because* the pax just built is used >> to create its own package. Nothing circular in there. > >The pax just built is going to be for the wrong architecture. I don't >see any attempt to build for DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE and then rebuild with It uses dpkg-deb in the cross case. Hence, the chown. >something fixed in pax. That's why we have NMU's - your package is IMHO >not NMU-able because the build system is insane. That's why, if I had When you work on the code (opposed to the packaging), all you have to do is drop in a quilt patch or more, run dch --nmu, dpkg-buildpackage and you’re set. That’s Debian standard. >to work on something in pax whilst you weren't around for whatever >reason, my only option would be to RM. It's better that I declare that That is absolutely, utterly ridiculous. Really. Will you RM all packages using, say (again, Manoj, if you read this, nothing against you, just using it as an example) Manoj’s buildsystem? Or dbs? If not, why not? >Just what is wrong with old-style debhelper like: Not much, other than the time a cowbuilder actually spends building the code, versus the time spent installing the B-D and doing several debhelper operations which – on m68k, this is *very* noticeable – run the same code over and over with each invocation (dh7 doesn’t even improve this *despite* calling only one dh binary, asides from it calling… dh_installgintrospection or something like that, and similar… funny stuff). And that’s what I’ll be uploading to experimental later. Despite that, I state here, for the record, that I believe I am entitled to do this. Oh, another thing that’s “wrong” with it: I wanted to build mksh on architectures where debhelper – or anything Perl, for that matter – is not installable, in order to test my fixes to dietlibc and klibc on them. Yes, these are Debian-Ports architectures which I guess you, in the best case, don’t care about, and in the worst case, to cite another RT member, don’t want to see any “more Debian-Ports spam”. But I care about my core, beyond what’s in a released Debian at any given point. (Hell, I even deal with Launchpad, *buntu user bugreports, file sync and merge requests, and all that.) Maybe this sheds some light on my motivation. (Besides that, I still build current mksh as packaged, with minimal patches, for systems as old as sarge and dapper, though etch and hardy are the oldest respective ones really in use at the moment.) bye, //mirabilos -- Darwinism never[…]applied to wizardkind. There's a more than fair amount of[…] stupidity in its gene-pool[…]never eradicated[…]magic evens the odds that way. It's[…]harder to die for us than[…]muggles[…]wonder if, as technology[…]better […]same will[…]happen there too. Dursleys' continued existence indicates so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
