On 17. 11. 15 22:43, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
Benjamin,
Answers below:
On 17. 11. 15 21:20, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi Nicholas,
I have a few questions about that applied patch:
...
3) Why do you create the symlinks via debian/links instead of the
Makefile where you do all the other
Benjamin,
Answers below:
On 17. 11. 15 21:20, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Hi Nicholas,
I have a few questions about that applied patch:
1) Why do you copy all bash completions to BC_BUILD_DIR? I see no
reason for that additional step.
The problem is that the scripts in the
/usr/share/bas
Hi Nicholas,
Am Mittwoch, den 11.11.2015, 10:04 + schrieb Nicholas Bamber:
> On 10/11/15 12:17, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> > On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles
On 10/11/15 12:17, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles is much more appropriate.
Installing the completion files in the right place under the right name
shoul
On 10/11/15 11:59, James McCoy wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
On the contrary, I think changing Makefiles is much more appropriate.
Installing the completion files in the right place under the right name
should happen regardless of whether this is bein
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 09:56:26AM +, Nicholas Bamber wrote:
> There are other ways of approaching this that would have less dependence on
> the use of symbolic links. I certainly would suggest that this heavy use of
> symbolic links should be transitional, but some use is neccessary since the
tag 804492 + patch
thanks
The attached patch is the simplest, most simple minded (and the easiest
diff to read). It consists only of symbolic link declarations in
debian/links and modifications to scripts/*.bash_completion .
There are other ways of approaching this that would have less depen
7 matches
Mail list logo
