Preston Landers wrote: > > David R Baker wrote: > > > I have been working on building XFree86, though the version on the CD's > > I think just before yours. > > I am using the files in the hamm directory, which, AFAIK is the same as > what's on the CD. >
The version you are using has a new patch from Xfree86, but the Debian stufff may be mostly unchanged. > > cd "wherever" > > dpkg-source -x blah.dsc > > debian/rules clean > > debian/rules build > > debian/rules binary . > > This is the clue that I was searching for. I did not have the .dsc > file, did not know anything about dpkg-source. But, after doing that, > debian/rules clean finally worked for me, where it did not before. So, > now it is in the (long) process of building the entire package. I am > reasonably confident that I am now on the right track ... certainly > further along than I was before I got your message. So, I must thank > you for being a big help!! > > > Policy says that only debian/rules binary should be necessary, but I > > had problems. There were permission problems the clean fixed. I > > could be wrong, but it appears to me that binary does not have build > > as a prerequisite and so several things that build does don't get done. > > I do not file a bug not being sure and I'm sure I would have problems > > maintaining such a large package. > > Well, that's interesting, but I don't really know anything about it. > I'm doing "debian/rules build" right now. > > > You may want to see if you can get unmodified source to build before > > modifying. > > True... though I thought, what the hell, just patch it and see if it > goes. You did get me past my stumbling point. > > Thanks again!! > Hope this helps! > --Preston > > -- > Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
