I had a look at pax (1:20120606-2+deb7u1) debian/rules. I didn't find it
insane, or even unreadable. There's a few obscure places, and a few
minor bugs, but that's it. Thorsten, I hope you'll find my review
useful:
DEB_BUILD_ARCH=$(shell dpkg-architecture -qDEB_BUILD_ARCH)
DEB_HOST_ARCH=$(she
Steve McIntyre dixit:
>Sorry, totally forgot to get back to you. I was hoping that the others
>from that BSP would give me the list, but nothing yet. Give me a few
>more days...
OK, no problem.
>I *do* still stand by the initial comments, regardless.
Understood.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
Darwinism
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 08:02:36PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>Dixi quod…
>
>>Steve McIntyre dixit:
>
>>>we think we may have found behaviour bugs too,
>>>but we can't be sure without spending even more effort.
>>
>>OK, just give me what you have, and I'll look at it, but I'm
>>pretty sure I che
Dixi quod…
>Steve McIntyre dixit:
>>we think we may have found behaviour bugs too,
>>but we can't be sure without spending even more effort.
>
>OK, just give me what you have, and I'll look at it, but I'm
>pretty sure I checked them.
I can't help but notice I never received even the vaguest
deta
Stefano Zacchiroli dixit:
>(which is in fact, exactly what happens during BSPs). Using something
>more "standard" in your package helps tremendously those people who,
>ultimately, just want to help you out.
Right, but there are three points still:
• At some point in time, I really needed mksh to
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 03:10:52PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >includes switching from the well-understood set of calls to debhelper
> >and dpkg-dev programs to something hand-rolled. Please *don't* do
> >this; it's not explicitly required by policy that packagers use these
> >programs, but pl
Steve McIntyre dixit:
>Right. I can see that mksh also follows a similar pattern. Any other
>packages?
Only these two, out of the packages I intended for uploading to
Debian proper.
>and the consensus of all the people here is "that's insane". Trying to
>work out what your builds are trying to d
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 03:10:52PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>severity 690381 wishlist
>tags 690381 + wontfix
>thanks
>
>Steve McIntyre dixit:
>
>>includes switching from the well-understood set of calls to debhelper
>>and dpkg-dev programs to something hand-rolled. Please *don't* do
>>this; it
severity 690381 wishlist
tags 690381 + wontfix
thanks
Steve McIntyre dixit:
>includes switching from the well-understood set of calls to debhelper
>and dpkg-dev programs to something hand-rolled. Please *don't* do
>this; it's not explicitly required by policy that packagers use these
>programs, b
Package: pax
Version: 1:20120605-1
Severity: important
It seems the change
* Build-Depends less package! Thanks to “goodbye” sample package!
includes switching from the well-understood set of calls to debhelper
and dpkg-dev programs to something hand-rolled. Please *don't* do
this; it's not ex
10 matches
Mail list logo
