On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Perhaps you could convince your upstream of using a non-eclipse build
> system with eclipse plugin support (e.g. autotools using the integration
> plugin provided by the LinuxTools project[1]).
>
Thanks. I'll investigate that if I don't ha
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:36:38PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adam Borowski wrote:
> > # Hairy, but safe against locales and changed error messages.
>
> This fails in cases where the makefile emits something to stderr when
> setting a variable, which can happen even for non-existing rules.
> Makefi
On 27/09/10 at 10:14 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
> > > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me
Adam Borowski wrote:
> # Hairy, but safe against locales and changed error messages.
> make -f /dev/null build-indep 2>unique-tmp-1
> (debian/rules build-indep && rm unique-tmp-1) 3>&1 1>&2 2>&3 |tee unique-tmp-2
> cmp -s unique-tmp-1 unique-tmp-2
> case $? in
> 0) echo "The build-indep target do
On 09/27/2010 10:14 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:33:05PM +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
>> I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
>> the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
>> lost. He does not re
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> >From the whole discussion, relying on Standards-Version was not well
> accepted so the only sane way of doing it (and parsing make's output
> is not sane enough for me, even if debhelper does it)
Debhelper can get away with using make -n in one case, and parsing make
-p o
Roger Leigh writes:
> Unless I missed it in a previous discussion, I can't see what's wrong
> with simply mandating support with a new Standards-Version as Bernhard
> suggested. Could you elaborate on why Build-Features seems preferable
> since this appears to be a simple and easily implementabl
[ adding MIA to Cc, for further inquiries, and the maintainer himself ]
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 06:33:05PM +0200, Harald Jenny wrote:
> I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
> the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
> los
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:27:20PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> > a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
>
> Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Russ Allbery (27/09/2010):
>> The only other proposed solution in the bug was to just require
>> build-arch/build-indep, and I think that would be more disruptive.
> Do we have numbers here? From another mail, it looks like a while
> back, only a minority of packages w
Russ Allbery (27/09/2010):
> The only other proposed solution in the bug was to just require
> build-arch/build-indep, and I think that would be more disruptive.
Do we have numbers here? From another mail, it looks like a while
back, only a minority of packages was affected. Sounds like something
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> ...it gets derailed by this feature request for Build-Features, which a
>> lot of people are much more dubious about (myself, for example: I think
>> hardening flags should be handled similarly to parallel build flags,
>> not v
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 2010-09-27 20:40, Josh Kelley wrote:
> I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
> into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
> build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse ca
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The not-so-evident part is that I want the syntax of this field to be
> > sufficiently extensible so that we can encode more information like
> > support of hardening build flags and similar stuff that we might want to
> > know to adjust the behaviour at
Hi Roland,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Roland Mas wrote:
>> Well, we know that fully 27% of popcon-reporting users already use
>> unstable or testing. So in general, developers already have an incentive
>> to keep unstable and testing usable for those users, not just stable.
>
> I'm fine wi
Joey Hess, 2010-09-27 15:26:10 -0400 :
> Roland Mas wrote:
>> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
>> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
>> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
>> upgrades from any versi
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:40:59PM -0400, Josh Kelley wrote:
> > I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build
> project
> > into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a
> managed
> > build project
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 02:40:59PM -0400, Josh Kelley wrote:
> I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
> into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
> build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse can start a build from the
> c
Roland Mas wrote:
> At least for some packages, it's hard enough ensuring a more-or-less
> pleasant experience in a stable release; trying to provide it on a
> moving target is *much* more work, especially if one must support
> upgrades from any version younger than X months (as has been
> sugges
I'm trying turn an Eclipse CDT (C/C++ Developer Tools) managed build project
into a Debian package and am having a lot of trouble. Since it's a managed
build project, I can't simply run make. Eclipse can start a build from the
command line (as described at
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34479
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: IOhannes m zmoelnig
* Package name: v4l2loopback
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : IOhannes m zmoelnig
* URL : http://github.com/umlaeute/v4l2loopback/
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : v4l2loopbac
Raphael Hertzog writes:
> From the whole discussion, relying on Standards-Version was not well
> accepted so the only sane way of doing it (and parsing make's output is
> not sane enough for me, even if debhelper does it) is to have the
> package explicitly record that it provides the required su
Dear list,
I'm sorry for disturbing all of you but I'm currently facing the problem that
the maintainer of the Debian sendmail package, Richard A Nelson, seems to be
lost. He does not react to bug reports nor mails concerning the libmilter
package which is used by some other software. Please if an
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 14:21:12 +0200 :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
>> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
>> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
>> >
>> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take i
* Raphael Hertzog [100927 14:28]:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> > a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
>
> Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been Bill Allombert and he did
> it
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> But this whole discussion got boring something like 10 years ago. It's
> a shame there is still no proper solution for that now.
Yeah, the only one who submitted code has been Bill Allombert and he did
it without following my recommendations so I have
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Roland Mas wrote:
> >> What do you base this on? It does not at all seem clear to me that
> >> rolling would not introduce maintainers who only care about rolling.
> >
> > Nobody can predict the future... but my take is that the people who
> > only care about rolling would
Raphael Hertzog, 2010-09-27 10:16:50 +0200 :
[...]
>> > Again it's unrelated to the existence of rolling, the problem is
>> > inactive maintainer not taking care of their packages and those are
>> > not the same that would actively push their packages to rolling.
>>
>> What do you base this on?
* Joachim Breitner [100926 21:45]:
> Let me rephrase Reinhard:
> what's the problem with requiring the build-arch and build-indep target
> for all packages in debian after squeeze release?
Most packages do not have build-arch and build-indep. (Mostly due to
dh_make not including them for single p
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:17:36PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> I'm not against having a constant useable testing, on the contrary. I
> just don't see why we want to choose for working around the problems we
> currently have with testing instead of fixing them for everyone.
You seem to be basing your
Hi,
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010, Luk Claes wrote:
> > I think that having an official "rolling" release always available would
> > reduce the pressure of maintainers to always push the latest into the next
> > stable release precisely because there's an alternative... so it would
> > rather help concernin
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 01:19:20PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > From what concerns the BTS, Don's proposal in [2] (the main one, not
> > the alternative solution) seems reasonable to me and others in the
> > thread. The proposal also seems to assu
32 matches
Mail list logo
